Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Ulster Constabulary

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on the Composition, Recruitment and Training of the RUC (HC 337) and the Government's Response thereto (HC 1142).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am delighted to introduce this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's third report of last Session on the composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was published on 27 July 1998. I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee for recommending this report for consideration by the House today. The Government's response was published as the Committee's third special report of last Session on 11 November 1998.
When the Select Committee first met in July 1997, we agreed that we would at all times have one inquiry in progress on a controversial subject and one on a more standard and general issue. This report falls into the former category. Our purpose was to evaluate the ways in which the RUC recruits and trains its members and how those processes can foster the widest possible community trust in the police force. The RUC has been at the centre of the fight against terrorist violence for the past 30 years. In the course of their duty, the officers of the RUC have borne the brunt of the danger and many have lost their lives or suffered horrific injuries. I pay tribute, as did the Committee in its report, to the sacrifices made by members of the RUC, and their families, over this difficult period. The Belfast agreement is intended to lead to an end to the sustained terrorist campaigns that have dominated life in Northern Ireland for a generation or more. Success in that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the role of the police.
As a result of the Belfast agreement, the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland has been established, under the chairmanship of Chris Patten, to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. That is required to report no later than autumn 1999. One of the aims of the Committee's report is to contribute to the commission's work by setting out some of the relevant issues raised in evidence. As part of its work, the commission is required to include means of encouraging widespread community support for the arrangements that it recommends. Recruitment and training have a key role in fostering such support.
The Committee came to 33 principal conclusions and recommendations. They are listed at the end of the report and I do not propose to go through them all on this occasion. I will, however, mention that we visited both Madrid and Bilbao to examine the policing of the Basque country in the context of general Spanish policing, and likewise The Hague to examine Dutch experience in lower-tier policing. Today, I propose to comment briefly on each of the three principal areas covered in the report and to conclude with a few remarks about possible future developments.
On composition, the RUC is, and always has been, disproportionately short of Roman Catholic officers. Roman Catholics make up more than 40 per cent. of the economically active population of Northern Ireland, but in August 1997 constituted only about 7.5 per cent of the RUC. It is also short of women officers: only about an eighth of RUC officers are women and they tend to be clustered in the lower ranks. Even if 40 per cent. of new intake were Catholic and 50 per cent. women, it would take a generation to eliminate those imbalances. The Committee considered that the long-standing shortage of Roman Catholic officers in particular could only make the task of building understanding between communities and the police much harder and would encourage a "them and us" mind set to develop both outside and inside the force. Such a mind set can only exacerbate the deep divide that currently exists between the police in Northern Ireland and many of those they are there to serve. As the Committee said, that must be tackled urgently.
Recruitment is the key to resolving the compositional difficulties of the RUC. Many elements combine to hinder greater recruitment of Roman Catholic officers. Intimidation and fears over personal safety have undoubtedly played their part over the past 30 years in particular. However, that factor alone cannot by itself explain low Catholic numbers: the Committee concluded that that is a symptom of the present lack of acceptance of, or confidence in, the RUC among a significant part of Northern Ireland's community.
What can be done to improve acceptance of the force and to remove disincentives to Catholic recruitment? The Patten commission will, of course, be addressing this question too, following extensive consultation in Northern Ireland. The Committee recommended two particular practical steps as having a contribution to make: ending the flying of the Union flag over police stations on 12 July and placing restrictions on RUC officers' membership of organisations or exclusive groups that generally prohibit membership on religious grounds. It is perhaps worth mentioning in tribute to my colleagues on the Committee that, in the four reports that it has so far published, despite the wide spectrum of opinion on the Committee from five different political parties, those two recommendations are the only two on which it has divided. All other recommendations in all four reports have been unanimous, without the reports becoming bland.
In the Government's response to the recommendations, the Government reported that the Chief Constable had issued instructions that the Union flag would not be flown on any public holiday, including 12 July. That goes beyond the Committee's recommendation. On membership of organisations, the Secretary of State accepted the Committee's recommendations that police officers who already belong to organisations such as the loyal orders and the Ancient Order of Hibernians should


register their membership of such organisations. The Secretary of State also envisages that members of the Freemasons, which is not a sectarian organisation, should do so. Registration will initially be on a voluntary basis, and will be private, as the Committee suggested. We recommended that new recruits to the RUC should not be permitted to be members of such organisations. The Government rejected that proposition, pending the findings of the Patten commission, but accepted that
there should be a more vigorous system in place for new recruits".
Perhaps the Minister can expand on that somewhat opaque statement, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker,
The Government have also established a working group to co-ordinate implementation and consider further the implications of the Committee's conclusions concerning membership of private organisations in the context of membership of public service organisations in general, not just the RUC. The details were set out in the Government's response and I hope that the Minister can describe today the progress made to date by the group in that important area.
A greater level of Roman Catholic and female recruitment will bring no long-term benefits unless the new recruits can be retained. The Committee found that the proportion of Roman Catholics in the higher ranks was encouraging, but the proportion of women was less so. The Committee received considerable evidence about the corrosive effects of sectarian and sexual harassment, which can lead to unfair discrimination and, in extreme cases, resignation from the force. The Committee pointed out the crucial role of those in supervisory ranks in changing inappropriate behaviour. The Government's response states that eliminating those pernicious practices is a priority area for the Chief Constable, and rightly so.
The Committee made a number of recommendations designed to improve the operation of the recruitment process itself. One element to which it attached importance was that the process should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair. As part of the process, the Committee recommended an appeal for unsuccessful candidates to the new police ombudsman. In their response, the Government note that the Chief Constable is devising a formal appeal procedure. It is vital to confidence in its findings that it is not simply an intra-RUC procedure but that it includes, as the Committee recommended, a respected independent element. I welcome the Chief Constable's acceptance of the Committee's recommendation that there should be a greater civilian contribution to the recruitment process.
One benefit from a stable peace process will be that Northern Ireland will not require so large a police force. The RUC envisages an establishment more than one third smaller than at present in those circumstances. It will be a major challenge to manage such a reduction while at the same time maintaining the necessary level of recruitment both to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the force and to improve its balance.
On the evidence available to the Committee, it would be a mistake to try to engineer any reduction in numbers in a way designed to redress partially the present imbalance. Instead, the Committee believes that the way forward must be through the recruitment process.
The Committee rejected positive discrimination in favour of Roman Catholic applicants. Such discrimination is unlawful and we could see no case for making an exception for the RUC. However, the law does not rule out positive action to encourage good candidates from under-represented groups to apply to join the RUC. That, combined with a clear goal of bringing the proportion of Roman Catholics in the force up to the proportion of Roman Catholics in the population as a whole, should provide an effective way of redressing the present imbalance within a reasonable time scale.
A fair employment report is due very shortly. Further goals and timetables will be agreed with the Fair Employment Commission, and published in the summer. I hope that they will be ambitious but realistic, and will send out an unequivocal message of equality and opportunity.
The Committee made a number of recommendations on training. It received evidence that some aspects are old fashioned, with a perhaps undue emphasis on drill, given the skills that are required of modern police officers in normal circumstances. The community awareness programme has made a useful start towards addressing training needs in the modern ethos of multiculturalism. Its scope should be widened and there should be greater involvement of outside trainers.
There is a need to enhance the present low consciousness among RUC officers of all ranks of the need to acknowledge community differences. A greater involvement of outside influence in RUC training will help to modernise the outlook of recruits and serving officers, and greatly enhance the public image of the police.
Finally, I should like to look to the future for a few moments. The RUC has faced with great fortitude the challenges of the past. It will face new challenges in the future, not least in responding to the changes that will undoubtedly come in the light of the report of the independent commission.
The Committee's report concluded by stating:
A lasting peace will offer many opportunities for Northern Ireland, but the changes that will result will be profound. Officers of all ranks, but especially those in senior positions, will need to display considerable leadership in developing the role of the RUC in the future.
I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I was not a member of the Select Committee when the investigation took place, but I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of past and present members of the Committee. I pay particular tribute to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), for his dexterity in steering a way through what were clearly difficult matters. That difficulty is shown by the fact that the Committee was divided on two issues, but the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that there were only two.
One of the things that the report makes clear is that the tradition of policing in Northern Ireland is remarkably different. It is much more akin to what John Alderson, the former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, once called the colonial tradition of policing, than to British community policing.
There are understandable reasons for that and, when I read the report, I was struck by the section referring to the dangers involved. It stated that it is more dangerous to be a police officer in Northern Ireland than it is to be one in El Salvador, and that police officers in Northern Ireland, rather than being killed as a byproduct of their activities, have been specifically targeted. We must all acknowledge the context in which policing takes place.
However, what comes through strongly in the report is that we must also recognise that it is almost inconceivable that a peaceful Northern Ireland will be achieved with the existing sort of police force. In particular, it is unacceptable that 40 per cent. of the population should be represented by only 8 per cent. of the police force. However much people might not want to engineer change or pursue a specific recruitment policy, it is inconceivable that there can be lasting confidence in the police without radical surgery as part of a settlement to transform that police force.
The report recognises questions of balance and the incompatibility of membership of organisations such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians with membership of the police service. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster noted, it also refers to the unacceptability of flying the Union flag on 12 July. Therefore, I was surprised that the report concludes that there is no argument for changing the name, uniform or symbols of the force.
People who have served in the force may be proud of its name, uniform and symbols, but they are part of a tradition that is unacceptable. So, too, are officers who belong to organisations that the Committee considered to be incompatible with membership of the police force and activities such as flying the Union flag on 12 July, which the Committee explicitly regarded as offensive and said should not continue.
If we are to change the police force and make it more acceptable, its symbols—name, uniform, and all the other elements that people associate with it—will also have to be changed. I find it strange that the Committee should have fallen short of making that recommendation.
Also, although the work of the community awareness programme is to be welcomed, the programme is very limited. It is interesting that the response to the questionnaire on harassment, which was cited in the report, was so poor. We are asked to believe that officers will be influenced by a programme to make them aware of their potential prejudices or even bigotry. However, the fact that that was not evident in their responses to the questionnaire suggests to me that the programme is extremely tentative.
In addition, the programme has not been subject to any reliable evaluation. The force may have good intentions with regard to drawing people's attention to the problems of prejudice and religious intolerance in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that the programme is not achieving that.
As we have seen in connection with the Lawrence inquiry report here, it is not enough to say that a member of a serving police force, in this country and in this day and age, will be aware of prejudice. We need to know that there are clear steps to change behaviour and to ensure that all members of the public are treated fairly and even-handedly.
There is nothing in the community awareness programme to suggest that it is going that far. I acknowledge the intent, but we are entitled to say that the

programme must go much further if it is ever going to be possible to create a police force in Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to the whole community. The difficulties of recruitment, because of the existing imbalance between Protestants and Catholics, raise the likelihood that it could take a generation to change the imbalance if we proceed with the present, or even an enhanced, recruitment policy. Because of that, it seems to me that the Committee may too lightly have dismissed the idea of a two-tier police force.
The RUC has developed around its security role almost a pseudo-military role at times. It will not be easy for the force to transform into what is more commonly understood to be a civilian police force. If we are serious about wanting a force acceptable to the whole community, creating a second tier of policing based more in traditional, civilian, community policing might offer a way forward. Perhaps some of the work that the Committee witnessed in the Basque country could be taken on board.
However much of a debt we owe to the Chief Constable of the RUC and his predecessors for their work in difficult circumstances, it is clearly wrong that any police force today should vest so much power in an individual, and that a force should be so little influenced by the community that it seeks to serve. If we genuinely want a force acceptable to the whole community, we must move significantly towards creating greater accountability. The people of Northern Ireland must genuinely be able to say that their police force belongs to all of them, and not just to one section of the community. I hope that the report will prompt urgent action to broaden accountability, and, in that sense, to weaken the power of the Chief Constable, which seems far in excess of what is tolerable today.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Some reports show that four out of five nationalists or republicans feel that the Royal Ulster Constabulary must be radically reformed or even scrapped. I want to suggest a link with some undesirable behaviour in Northern Ireland, and to outline two suggestions of what we might do about it.
There is a direct link—at least in the justifications given—with paramilitary beatings, and with exiles, of whom we have not spoken much in the House. Exiles are individuals who have effectively been banned by paramilitary organisations, under threat of violence or death, from living in the Province. If we consider the connection between those two things and the RUC, we may see a link in that the paramilitaries justify their vigilante behaviour on the grounds that the RUC is not maintaining law and order in certain communities.
We would all agree that that is a weak argument for operating outside the remit of the law. However, if we are to tackle the issue, we must understand the difficulties in communities and the feelings of local people. We should challenge head on the assumptions underlying the vigilante behaviour of the paramilitary groups. One assumption of those groups and their apologists is that the RUC cannot operate effectively in some communities. Often, the low percentage of Roman Catholics in the RUC is cited as a reason for that.
My first point, therefore, is that we need to recognise the link within the logic used to justify outrageous and barbaric acts by those who perpetrate them. What can we do? My main concern is that Catholics, by and large, do


not feel that they are part of the RUC. There is anecdotal evidence that good Catholic applicants are overlooked for relatively poor reasons, such as minor traffic offences. We should be able to show that that is discriminatory against Catholics. There may also be some coercion to dissuade Catholics from entering what some communities regard as a Unionist organisation.
Secondly, we do not fully understand what may dissuade Catholic applicants from putting their names forward. We should consider the proposal to conduct a comprehensive professional research project so that we can understand exactly the attitudes and opinions of potential Catholic recruits who do not apply for a career in the RUC. We must also tackle the connected question of underlying attitudes in the communities that could supply those recruits. A project could throw up some interesting and previously unseen linkages involving the paramilitary beatings and the exiles.
Finally, we must be clear that the RUC is the established organisation for maintaining law and order. A name change alone will not fix the problems. A more comprehensive review of the type suggested in the Select Committee report would go a long way to beginning to tackle underlying attitudes that make it difficult for many people in the Province to take the RUC's role seriously.

Mr. Roy Beggs: It was a privilege to participate in the investigation into the composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary under our distinguished chairman. The RUC and its reserve have served Ulster well. I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the force, and I do so on behalf of the greater number, by far, of Northern Ireland's law-abiding citizens. We owe the RUC a great debt of gratitude for the sacrifices that it has made, especially during the past 30 years. The RUC has provided protection to persons and property irrespective of class, creed or ethnic origin.
I also record my admiration and sincere appreciation of the support given by wives, husbands, fathers, mothers and family members to their relatives who have served Ulster in most difficult times. They have faced vicious and brutal terrorist onslaughts. The RUC has earned the respect and admiration of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that admiration goes worldwide.
Those who call for the complete disbandment of the RUC and for its replacement with a new force are, by and large, from that sector of Northern Ireland society that has endeavoured to destabilise and overthrow the lawful authority of that region of the United Kingdom since the first day that Northern Ireland was established. Let us not encourage the anti-RUC element whose evil deeds over the past 30 years and before have caused unlimited misery, created widows and orphans, mutilated bodies and damaged minds. Those people should not be rewarded with the satisfaction of destroying the RUC.
For as long as terrorists masquerade as politicians, and until there is evidence that the terrorist war is over—the destruction of explosives and weapons, the cessation of brutal mutilations, the break-up of structures of paramilitarism and an end to protection rackets and drug smuggling—the law-abiding in Northern Ireland will need

the protection of all those who serve in the RUC. The force's numbers cannot be reduced before all those things have happened.
Most people in Northern Ireland wish and pray for permanent peace. The law-abiding have never had anything to fear from the police force, and they should have nothing fear from future policing arrangements. Permanent peace will enable the RUC to become more representative of the whole community. I refute the insinuations and allegations that the RUC belongs to the Unionist community. I have never had any favours from the RUC: I have paid my fines and my debts, I have been prosecuted and I have been to prison. I have been deliberately made an example of in order to show the world that there is no favouritism—not even for Ulster Unionist politicians. So I do not want my colleagues to fall into the trap of repeating allegations that are intended to damage and discredit.
I believe that the report identifies the historic and particular reasons why there has been imbalance in the past and present composition of the RUC. We cannot minimise the targeting of Roman Catholics serving within the RUC as a deliberate means of dissuading others from applying. It is a great credit to the RUC that Roman Catholics' chances of senior promotion within the force are about twice that of Protestants. That reflects the fact that those who have joined the RUC from the Roman Catholic community have been dedicated in their service, have wished to be part of all that is good in Northern Ireland, and have received promotion on merit alone.
The report emphasises the need for a police force to reflect the religious, gender and ethnic balances of the community that it serves. We all agree with that aim, and I believe that genuine peace will enable that to happen in the case of the RUC. In the report's 33 summarised conclusions and recommendations, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has sought to assist the RUC to become a police force whose composition will command the respect, confidence and support of all citizens in Northern Ireland. We hope also that recruitment will come more readily from those sectors that are presently under-represented in the RUC. I commend the RUC for its self-examination, and do not dismiss the benefits that will flow from further development of the community awareness training programme and other on-going professional development within the RUC.
However, I caution Mr. Patten and his commission against pandering to those who seek to destroy the RUC because that will not make the police force any more acceptable. Permanent peace will assist in creating balance within the RUC and enable it to gain wider acceptance throughout the community.

Mr. Martin Salter: I, too, am delighted that the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has been selected for debate—I wish that more Select Committee reports would receive this treatment. Like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for the enigmatic way in which he chaired the Committee's deliberations. Our Select Committee must be one of the most diverse in the House of Commons. There are strongly held views on all sides—from Belfast, East to Brent, East—yet the vast majority of our deliberations are


conducted in a friendly and co-operative manner. That is certainly a tribute to the way in which the Committee is chaired, managed and, dare I say, directed by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—although I wish that he would represent a constituency with a shorter title.
To some extent, I believe that our report has been overtaken by events. We have witnessed the signing of the Belfast agreement and the establishment of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, whose terms of reference are remarkably similar to our own. The terms of reference state:
Proposals will be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole.
I believe that the report makes a significant contribution to the debate about policing—and a range of views have been expressed this morning. Furthermore, I believe that the report provides a signpost for the work of the commission and highlights issues that were thrown up by the Committee's extensive and beneficial evidence sessions.
Perhaps the main issue is to ask: how do we achieve widespread community support for a police service and ensure that that police service is representative of the community? This is a significant day upon which to discuss policing. We shall hear later from the Home Secretary about the Macpherson report—and there are some parallels with this report. It is regrettable that a report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been leaked. I am also sorry that some of our more controversial recommendations were leaked to sections of the media in advance. That aside, I put on record my tribute to all those who are working for peace and fighting against terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
The key question is: does composition and religious affiliation really matter in the context of a police force? The answer must be an overwhelming yes. If people do not believe me or other Labour Members, they should read the evidence provided by Colin Smith, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. He was asked:
Should the RUC be concerned about the religious affiliations of its members? If so, why?
Mr. Smith's answer was unequivocal. He replied:
Yes. It is a basic precept of policing in a democracy that the composition of forces should reflect the composition of the communities they serve. 'Policing by Consent' requires the police to have the respect and trust of all sections of society, and in a divided society it is essential the police officers and civilian support staff reflect both sides of the divide. Policing inevitably involves intervention in conflicts between individuals and groups, therefore adherence to this principle is an important way of demonstrating impartiality and securing universal confidence and support.
I hope that we can ignore the argument that this issue does not matter—because it does.
In a society where there is a split in religious affiliations—there is some argument about the figures, but it is about 55 per cent. Protestant and 45 per cent. Roman Catholic—some 93 per cent. of RUC members come from the majority tradition. That clearly means that, in terms of composition, the Royal Ulster Constabulary fails the most basic test. There is no doubt about that. In the course of taking evidence, we observed examples of what I would

call institutionalised sectarianism. It exists—let us not deny that—from the level of canteen culture bigotry through to systematic religious harassment.
However, we also heard clear and significant evidence about intimidation of members of the Roman Catholic community who wish to pursue careers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I had the privilege of speaking to several people who wish to pursue such careers but who have been prevented from doing so by intimidation and threats of violence. We cannot ignore such behaviour. There are those in both communities who have a vested interest in creating no-go areas for the police force. I had the opportunity to discuss those issues in the terrorist mutilations debate on 27 January, so I shall not go into them now.
There is a clear link between gangsterism and paramilitary activity dressed up as political protest. A few months ago in west Belfast, I had a private meeting with a former inspector there who highlighted a poignant situation. He wants to send officers to discuss personal safety with schoolchildren but cannot because picket lines prevent the pursuit of that basic tenet of community policing. He wants to provide home security advice for pensioners but cannot because officers might be at risk. That is clear evidence of a systematic campaign to prevent the RUC is from doing its job. It is not only nationalist areas; this occurs in many of the more front-line loyalist areas. Let us return to some of the internal problems.

Mr. William Thompson: If the RUC achieved this proper balance, would the situation change in west Belfast when police wish to visit some schools?

Mr. Salter: I believe that it would. If we signed up to the principle of policing by consent, it would be difficult to get community support for making areas ungovernable.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) will not like hearing about the evidence not of a propagandist but of the RUC's own internal survey of religious harassment in the work place. Some 63 per cent. of Roman Catholics have been subject to religious and political harassment in the RUC during the course of their careers. I do not want to expand on that at length but let us not deny the facts. There is intimidation of people who wish to join the RUC and, within the RUC, there is intimidation of people from the minority community. What are we going to do about it?
I suggest, especially to Opposition Members, that one of the first things that we must do is accept that there is an issue. We must accept that the people who call for reform and want to achieve policing by consent in Northern Ireland are not rebels. They are not all insurrectionists trying to overthrow the British state.

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is some harassment within the RUC of Roman Catholics, which, of course, we deplore. Does he accept that it is not institutional to the force but an example of what might be called the canteen culture, which exists in all police forces, and that the RUC is trying to address that? I acknowledge that he mentioned the intimidation of Catholics to dissuade them from joining. Does he also accept that there is a chill factor, which is not addressed in the report, in the nationalist community, quite distinct


from the intimidation and criminality that he mentioned? Does he agree that we will not succeed in changing the RUC's composition until the chill factor, which is reflected in the social ostracism of Catholics who join it, in the Gaelic Athletic Association ban and in the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to appoint chaplains, is changed?

Mr. Salter: Yes and no. Yes, I believe that religious harassment is institutionalised. Careful reading of the evidence shows that. I accept that there is a significant chill factor. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party were at almost every evidence-taking session of the Select Committee and had ample opportunity to explore the issue but chose not to. I suggest that he talks to them.
We addressed some of the significant issues involving flags, symbols and the loyal orders. Let me highlight something that needs to be praised. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not believe that the RUC community awareness programme at Garnerville road is limited. If he had had the chance to visit it, I am sure that he would have been as impressed as we were. I pay tribute to the members of the nationalist and Roman Catholic community who were taking part at some personal risk. Like us, they have reached one simple conclusion: the achievement of policing by consent and a police force that tries to represent the community that it serves is a precondition for a peaceful democratic society. I believe that there is no case for revolution but there is a clear case for gradual reform. I hope that this report is a significant contribution to that process.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I wish to address a controversial issue that emerged from the report: the membership of exclusive organisations. I was advised when the Committee met that, as a member of the Loyal Orange Institution of England, I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. I have some doubts about that advice because I have no involvement whatsoever in the Orange Order of Ireland or any of its constituent lodges. Nevertheless, I make the declaration.
I strongly agreed with the Secretary of State's response to the report when she wrote:
the overriding principle is that those who hold positions of public responsibility should be, and should be seen to be, impartial in the discharge of their duties.
I believe that that goes to the heart of the issue. The argument that membership of the exclusive orders runs counter to that lacks any evidence.
Some may love it to be otherwise, but the impartiality of the RUC, with members of the loyal orders in its ranks, cannot be seriously or significantly challenged. It is evident from the higher arrest and conviction rate for loyalist terrorists and from the fact that the RUC has been on the receiving end of loyalist terrorism. Most recently, PC Greg Taylor was kicked to death by loyalists in Ballymoney. PC Frank O'Reilly was critically injured by a blast bomb during loyalist rioting in Portadown last August. Most especially, the RUC's impartiality is evident in the continuing and sometimes ugly saga of Drumcree, where it demonstrates exemplary courage, valour and discipline in its confrontation with loyalists, some

of whom, no doubt, are members of the loyal orders. The fact is that the RUC, with many members of the loyal orders in its ranks, has served both sides of Northern Ireland's divided community with magnificent heroism and restraint.
In her response, the Secretary of State, pending the findings of the independent commission, chose not to challenge the assertion of the Apprentice Boys that there is nothing incompatible in membership of their organisation and of the RUC. Nor did she challenge, again pending the findings of the independent commission, their opposition to any move that would prevent police officers from following their religion and culture. I agree with that approach, which is why, in Committee, I tabled an amendment to the effect that RUC officers, both current and new recruits, should be allowed to belong to private societies such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the loyal orders, but be required to register their membership. That view is shared, according to the Secretary of State's response, by the police authority. I still believe that that is the right approach. If we were to deny members of those groups the right to be, or to become, police officers, we would be guilty of bigotry and prejudice comparable with that which we condemn in others.

Mr. Tony McWalter: In the five minutes available to me, I shall concentrate on paragraph 37 of the report. I associate myself with the many speeches of praise of the bravery of those who have sought to implement peace in Northern Ireland.
There is in England a gipsy camp known to me. In it, there are a number of young people who would be best described as hooligans. Despite that, that gipsy camp is an exemplary neighbour. Local people have no difficulties with the hooligans, because the person who is in charge of the gipsy camp says to the neighbours, "If any of my lads do anything which, in any way, invades your peace or your ability to enjoy your premises, let me know, and I'll deal with them"—and deal with them he does.

Mr. William Ross: By what means?

Mr. McWalter: By the strap or other such means, as families have done for hundreds of years; I do not commend that. In England, such a different source of authority from the law and the police force is very rare. In Northern Ireland, the number of people who regard themselves as appealing to some other authority or law is very much greater than in England.
The Select Committee report took seriously the plight of those who regard themselves as alienated. Although we of course dealt with the issue of under-representation of women in the RUC, the report specifically deals with the issue of under-representation of Catholics in the force. Some will see the report as pro-Catholic, some will see it as pro-nationalist, some will even see it as pro-republican.
I draw attention to paragraph 37, which establishes unanimously that the Committee took seriously the problem of under-representation, and recognised that some things could be done, within approved legal structures, to try to minimise the extent to which there is a law and a force other than that of the state. It states that one of the things that we must do is to say that the cause


of low Roman Catholic membership is not merely a result of intimidation. Even if intimidation contributes to the cause—how we quantify such a contribution, I do not know—and even if an element in the Catholic community is saying, "You will not join that; if you do, you are a traitor", there are nevertheless things that we can do to improve the situation.
I agree very strongly with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on the community awareness programme that the RUC has inaugurated. It is fantastic. It recognises the Catholic community's problems, and has made an enormous effort to understand why so many people in the Catholic community feel alienated from the normal processes of law. The programme is doing its best to try to address that issue.
Although exemplary in its content, the community awareness programme is not sufficiently extended. How much of the process of training is devoted to such problems of alienation? The answer is comparatively little. How many RUC members, such as those who have been in post for 10 or 15 years, or are members of the canteen culture that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described, have access to the programme? The answer, again, is comparatively little. The community awareness programme is not sufficiently distributed throughout the RUC, and is not sufficiently taken on board, even in training recruits.
One of the things that I discovered as a lecturer in philosophy was that it is very difficult to address people's reluctance to take seriously ideas which their culture has treated as nugatory. It takes an awful lot of effort, training, essay writing and discussion. Just being given a relatively small snapshot of what life might be like on the other side is not sufficient.
Paragraph 37 says that confidence in the RUC must be achieved among a much wider number of people in the Northern Ireland community. The report begins that debate, takes that issue seriously, and does so with the approval of all members of the Committee, from Belfast, East to Brent, East.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I echo the comments of my colleagues on the Committee on the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We have all enjoyed working under him. It was a remarkable achievement to reach the level of consensus that is borne out in the report in a Committee comprising quite a diverse range of political opinion. I also pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has suffered greatly during the past 30 years of terrorist violence. We ought to recall the level of sacrifice that its members have made in defending and protecting all of the community in Northern Ireland.
The main thrust of the report deals with the imbalance of membership of women and Roman Catholics in the RUC. It proposes improvements in training and recruitment procedures to deal with that imbalance, which I welcome.
I and some other colleagues dissented from two aspects of the report. One was the issue of flying the Union flag. It is worth bearing in mind that the Union flag is our national flag, and that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is appropriate, on occasions, for the

RUC to fly the national flag. Equally, I welcome the Committee's conclusion that there is no clear reason for making a special case for changing the name of the RUC. Members of that police force carry the name with pride. The name is also very important to the widows and orphans of RUC members who have lost their lives serving the community.
There is no case to be made against other aspects of RUC symbolism either. Considering that the force's badge shows the harp, the crown and the shamrock, nobody could reasonably argue that it does not fairly reflect both traditions in Northern Ireland. Similarly, I find it unconvincing that nationalists argue against a police force whose members wear a green uniform.
I and other colleagues also dissented from prohibition of the recruitment to the RUC of members of certain organisations. Such a prohibition would raise a number of issues, not least the question of fair employment. I am not convinced that existing laws on fair employment in Northern Ireland would permit such a prohibition. I believe firmly that recruitment to the RUC should be on merit, and merit alone.
I support the proposal for the registration of membership of such organisations. I welcome the fact that the Government, in their response, rejected the Committee's recommendation on prohibition of membership. It would be foolish to deny a sizeable proportion of the community in Northern Ireland access to membership of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, bearing it in mind that the organisations mentioned in the report represent a large proportion of the population. We are seeking inclusivity in our police service in Northern Ireland, and such a prohibition would mitigate against that.
If the Minister has time, will he clarify exactly the organisations which officers of the RUC will be encouraged to register their membership of? Will they include, for example, membership of organisations such as the Knights of St. Columbanus and Opus Dei, as well as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the loyal orders and the Freemasons?
In his intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned the chill factor. It is not correct for the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) to suggest that the wider chill factor was not addressed in the report. Paragraph 4 of the conclusions and recommendations refers to intimidation, peer group pressure and so on. Those are symptoms of the wider chill factor towards the RUC within the nationalist community, which expresses itself in a number of ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann mentioned the Gaelic Athletic Association's ban on members of the RUC belonging to its organisation.
There have also been problems with members of the SDLP—the largest nationalist party—refusing to serve on local police liaison committees. That, too, sends out the wrong signal to the nationalist community about the acceptability of the RUC and creates and adds to the wider chill factor.
Impartiality has also been mentioned. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). I add that one only has to visit the Maze and Maghaberry prisons to see that their number of loyalist prisoners equates to—indeed, in proportionate terms, is greater than—the number of republican prisoners.


We must accept that it was the RUC who put those men behind bars and in that respect it has been highly impartial.
It is ironic that we are having this debate on the day on which we anticipate the publication of a report on the investigation by the Metropolitan police into the murder of Mr. Stephen Lawrence. Without anticipating the findings of that report, it is fair to say that no police service in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world is perfect. The RUC does not pretend to be perfect, but when we bear in mind what that police service has had to endure in the past 30 years of terrorist violence and the difficult conditions in which it has had to work, we realise that it has acted honourably and professionally. I hope that the RUC will continue to be the police force that provides an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to deal with aspects of the problem of recruitment of Catholics to the RUC. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has recognised and condemned the canteen culture that exists, and that is important. However, paragraph 37 of the report, which deals with those matters, stresses that
a picture does emerge: intimidation; peer group pressure; losing contact with family and friends",
and expresses concern for the safety of Roman Catholic officers. That obviously provides a tremendous bar to recruitment to people from Roman Catholic areas.
One of the factors behind that is the intimidation and beatings perpetrated by the IRA. If we were discussing other matters, I might want to talk about loyalist paramilitary activity, but it is sufficient in this debate to refer to IRA activity. It has sought to operate as a crude police force, judge, jury and executioner in the most barbaric fashion to contain and control its own communities. In those circumstances, it is difficult for people to contemplate a career in the RUC, yet the IRA can change its policy, as it did during Clinton's visit and in the run-up to the Belfast agreement. Recent publicity from the House and elsewhere means that during the past fortnight republican violence has ended, apart from perhaps one incident.
Sinn Fein is sufficiently worried about the violence to have thought of an alternative that it calls restorative justice, in which it brings together victims and those who have committed a crime to sort out matters. I am not against restorative justice if it is operated by officialdom, but I am not in favour of it being operated by a political party.
Responses to the beatings, such as that by the leader of the Ulster Unionists—who suggested that Amnesty International should monitor the situation; and the organisation responded to that—mean that the violence seems to have been called off for the time being. As long as the publicity is kept up, that situation will continue.
We now need to tackle the problem of people being forced into exile from Northern Ireland or particular communities. Several hundred people have been chased out of Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups.
In January, Families Against Intimidation and Terror assisted 15 families to leave Northern Ireland and has dealt with about 80 people this year. In Manchester, the Christian group Maranatha is dealing with 14 cases. It assists one family a week, but before the ceasefire it was dealing with only one family a month. That is a serious matter that could be tackled by 10 March.
The Peace Train organisation and New Dialogue, of which I am joint president, are calling for action by the IRA to stop exiling people. That could be done in two stages. The first is to ensure that no more people are placed in exile, then we must tackle the problem of returning people to Northern Ireland, which obviously is linked to ending violence and intimidation because people cannot return unless the circumstances are favourable.
Those approaches are hugely important for putting in place arrangements for people in Catholic communities to feel secure in applying for membership of the RUC. Our immediate situation is therefore highly relevant to the problems that we are discussing this morning.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): My party warmly welcomes the fair and well-balanced report produced by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
The debate has been useful and well balanced, and has proved timely because we have discussed the issues being considered by the Patten commission under the Belfast agreement. Many of the Select Committee's arguments and conclusions are reflected in our submission to the Patten commission, which we published last September. We look forward to the commission nailing the lies and distortions of those who wish to discredit the RUC and those such as Sinn Fein-IRA which would like it to be disbanded.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RUC. My party is unstinting in its admiration and praise for that force. We shall do everything to uphold the integrity and reputation of the most courageous police force in the United Kingdom. For 30 years it has been in the front line against terrorism, protecting democracy. It has stood between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy in a part of the United Kingdom.
The RUC has paid a terrible price: 302 of its members have been murdered and nearly 9,000 have been injured. Intimidation continues, with many families driven from their homes. In 1998 alone, 71 families of past or serving RUC officers were rehoused owing to intimidation. Only a few weeks ago when I visited South Armagh, I learned of another police man and his family who have had to be moved under extreme circumstances.
Responsibility for that lies mainly with the Provisional IRA and other republican terror groups, although officers have suffered also at the hands of so-called loyalists. All hon. Members have seen the disgraceful scenes at Drumcree, where members of the RUC have been attacked and brutalised in quite unreasonable circumstances.
When Sinn Fein calls for the RUC to be disbanded, it is pursuing a long-held republican ambition that the IRA should be allowed to police nationalist areas. That would mean replacing the rule of law with knee-cappings and


beatings with baseball bats, as we have seen in recent months. In carrying out its duties, the RUC has never been above or outside the law, but always subject to it.
It is important that there should be change, and every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has confirmed that. Let us not forget that the RUC has been a willing instigator of change. The force is unrecognisable from the force of 30 years ago, when the present troubles started. In recent years there has been a fundamental review of policing, the adoption of an annual policing plan, a three-year strategic plan, local strategic plans, the creation of local community police liaison committees—I was pleased to hear of the evidence that the Select Committee collected from those committees—and the setting of targets for sub-divisions and sub-departments.
In a survey carried out in September 1997, 78 per cent. of the people thought that the RUC does a good or a very good job. Significantly, 55 per cent. of the nationalist community came up with that response. That must be underlined and not forgotten.
The greatest change that the RUC requires is a permanent end to terrorism. That will allow the flak jackets, the guns and the armoured vehicles to go. It will allow the RUC to develop into a police force truly working in partnership with the community. No organisation would welcome that more than the RUC.
At the heart of my party's approach to policing is a belief that change should not be made for its own sake, and certainly not for political reasons. Conservatives believe that nothing should be done that undermines the effectiveness of the RUC in protecting the public and upholding the rule of law.
There should be no question of disbanding the RUC. It should remain the legitimate police force in Northern Ireland and it should remain a united force. The proposal to establish local forces or to separate the anti-terrorist function from what we would call normal policing would be inefficient, lead to two-tier policing and encourage those who wish to supplant the RUC.
The operational independence of the RUC must be retained at all costs to prevent the police ever becoming the operational tool of politicians of whatever political party—a problem that nationalists will recall from the Stormont period. That is not to say that accountability does not exist. The Chief Constable is accountable to Parliament, to the Police Authority and, above all, to the law. The Police Act 1998 introduces a police ombudsman and clarifies the tripartite relationship between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable. It should be given time to work.
With regard to control of the police, once the Assembly is working thoroughly, there is a case for transferring responsibility to Stormont for some matters currently carried out by the Secretary of State, but with strong safeguards, especially of operational independence. No change should be made to the tripartite structure without the consent of the House. No transfer should take place until the decommissioning of illegally held weapons has been completed, and until the routine support of the Army is no longer needed.
The crucial and sensitive issue raised by so many hon. Members in the debate is composition and recruitment. The RUC, as we have regularly been told, is 92 per cent. Protestant. We all want a police force that more accurately reflects the make-up of society, but the Minister and I

know that there are no quick fixes. The biggest deterrent to Catholics joining the force, as has been said in all parts of the House today, has been intimidation and threats from the IRA and other republicans.
Peace will help, but it will not bring results overnight. Merit must remain the basis of recruitment. The goal should be to recruit a much higher proportion of Catholics than exists in the population as a whole. I hope that that will happen.
The other sensitive issue is symbols, culture and ethos in the force. Like the Select Committee, we see no justification for changing the name of the RUC. It is a name granted by royal charter of which the force is justly proud. As the Chief Constable has pointed out, there is no evidence that the name is a significant barrier to Catholic recruitment. If there were, we would be prepared to be more flexible, to stamp that out. There can be no place in the RUC for religious or sexual discrimination. We applaud the efforts of the Chief Constable to stamp out that evil.
We support the view of the Select Committee that the Union flag should not be flown on 12 July. The Chief Constable's decision that flags should not be flown at all from police stations in the Province seems sensible, sensitive and the correct way forward.
The size of the force will be a problem. Any reduction in size from the present 13,000 members must be gradual. Even when peace is established, there will still need to be a larger force than the forces serving a comparable population in other parts of the United Kingdom. We strongly support the Chief Constable's estimate that owing to exceptional demands, the RUC should in future be, in his words,
in the order of less than 8,000 strong".
It would be remiss of me not to conclude by condemning—I know that I do so on behalf of every hon. Member—the dreadful incident in Bessbrook in the early hours of the morning. It is another example of mutilation, beating, torture and intimidation in the Province. A young woman was attacked by eight hooded psychopaths. When they could not find the man whom they were looking for, and with her four young children lying in bed, they inscribed a death threat across her arms and legs. That is a vivid illustration of the dreadful problem of those who have not renounced violence, as the hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned.
The conclusion is that one of the principal reasons for the continuing violence is that paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide wish to control their own communities to such an extent that they will be able to persuade others that there can be a reform of the RUC and no need for the legitimate police force to be present in those areas. I believe that all hon. Members present totally reject that. That must a clear message from the debate today.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on bringing this subject to the Floor of the House and on his skilful chairmanship of the Committee. It is a measure of his chairmanship that there have been so few recorded differences between members of the


Committee, given the highly contentious issues with which they have to deal. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate.
The volume of written and oral evidence to the Committee clearly bears testament to the fact that the subject matter is extremely complex. The Committee's work in taking, testing and probing that evidence could not have been easy. I know from the experience of having given evidence to the Committee, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, how much effort went into the Committee's work, and I shared a very concentrated afternoon with them. I should like to say that it was an enjoyable occasion, but would not want knowingly to mislead the House. I have appeared before the Committee on a number of occasions and I know how thoroughly and exhaustively it goes about its task.
I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. Let me begin by paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have noted the tributes paid to members of the RUC and its Reserve for what they have endured and achieved during the past 30 years. I should like to echo those tributes, which have been hard earned over many years of service and sacrifice in the interest of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. It is important that those sacrifices are not forgotten or diminished.
The RUC has played a crucial part in maintaining stability through the past difficult 30 years. All those who have served over the years, and their families, will take comfort from the sentiments expressed today about their role.
Before I come to the core of the report, I want to put my response in context. This will show that the Government's priorities reflect the Committee's timely recommendations. The Belfast agreement of 10 April is an achievement that provides the opportunity for a peaceful future based on an agreed political settlement. Although much progress has been made to date, a number of fundamental difficulties remain, although those should not overshadow what has been achieved.
The endorsement of the agreement in referendums, the election of a new Northern Ireland Assembly, the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and an Equality Commission will put Northern Ireland at the forefront of protecting people's rights. The Government have established the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland and a criminal justice review, and we have seen the ending of routine military patrols in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and other moves towards a more normal security environment.
The Committee said that some changes in policing—for instance, overcoming the RUC's religious imbalance, which formed recommendation No. 16—would follow change in the political background in Northern Ireland. The Government agree with that view. The Committee's recommendation No. 27 that the status of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Northern Ireland be regularised has also been taken on board. That function will become a statutory requirement as from April this year.
The Government agree with the Committee that changes to police governance are key to creating greater public confidence. That is set out in recommendation No. 30. We agree, too, about the need for clarity in accountability, set out in recommendation No. 31.
Those issues are fundamental to establishing confidence in the police service, which is why the Government are engaged in a wide-ranging programme of reform and modernisation of policing in Northern Ireland. We have carried through changes to strengthen accountability, clarify roles and responsibilities, and enhance confidence by the passing of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. For example, as hon. Members have recognised, the establishment of a wholly independent Office of Police Ombudsman is a ground-breaking, confidence-building reform. Its aim is to secure police and public confidence in the impartiality of the new system, and it is unique within the United Kingdom. We are in the process of appointing the ombudsman and hope to make an announcement next month.
Measures to enhance accountability by setting aims and targets for policing and the production of a policing plan were implemented in October 1998. The results of that will be made public next month when the first statutory annual policing plan will be issued by the Police Authority. Other changes clarifying the roles and management responsibilities of the Police Authority, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, with consequent benefits for efficiency and effectiveness, are on target to be implemented in April 1999 and are set out in the 1998 Act.
On the subject of accountability, I also welcome the rapid expansion of community and police liaison committees—from some 30 to 100 in the past two years—presided over by the Police Authority and the RUC.
The Committee was also concerned with issues of impartiality and the removal of disincentives for Roman Catholics to join, set out in recommendation No. 3 of the report. As other hon. Members have noted, the flying of the Union flag was an issue, and the Secretary of State said in her response to the Committee that the Chief Constable has brought practice in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain.
On another symbolic issue, measures in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to modernise the RUC "oath" were implemented in October last year. The Secretary of State recently laid before Parliament a statement of policing principles agreed between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable, highlighting the importance attached to the issue of impartiality.
I want now to deal with the future and the Patten commission. We cannot stand still on an issue as important as policing, but must take a balanced and evolutionary approach. It shows the willingness of the Government and the RUC to embrace sensible change. It is worth noting that some of those who call for the most drastic changes are not prepared to accept change in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. If the RUC is prepared to embrace change, so should others. Those critics should move away from empty rhetoric and accept the democratic process. There can be no justification for bullying, intimidation and harassment, or for brutal summary justice on the pretext that the RUC is an unacceptable police force. Even if people want to see further changes, that is no excuse for failing to co-operate with the police.
The Committee has, quite properly, expressed its views on what is referred to as "two-tiered" policing. It is not appropriate for me to guess what the commission might recommend, and I suggest that that should be left to the commission to report on. However, the two extremes of no change and total disbandment of the RUC are not likely to be on the commission's agenda, and they are not on the Government's.
The Government's goal is to have the best possible police service for all of the people of Northern Ireland. We want policing that is acceptable and effective; impartial and accountable; truly representative; and takes account of differences within the wider community on this issue.
The focus should be on producing solutions that will meet the practical needs of the people of Northern Ireland, as the Committee has done in its report, rather than based on any sterile, ideological analysis. That is why the Patten commission was set up. It is an independent body that can approach the subject objectively and constructively. Its task is to take us from where we are at present to where it judges we should be in the future.
Change is inevitable and the RUC recognises the need for change. It wants to be a normal police service. How quickly that can be achieved will depend on how long the terrorist threat remains. Even set against the huge sacrifices that the RUC has made over the past three decades, its ambition is to use the skills that it has quietly developed over the years in non-terrorist areas to provide a policing service relevant to everyone in the community.
I have given examples of how the RUC is developing that approach. There are others. For instance, in the international arena officers have recently trained in the United States of America with colleagues from the Garda Siochana, and in April RUC officers will bring their expertise to help the efforts of the United Nation's international task force on policing in Bosnia.
Nearer home, I am sure that Committee members were as delighted as I was to see an RUC officer win a top UK award for community policing. It was a first-class achievement and belies those who seek to portray the RUC as a hostile force, remote from the community it is charged to serve. The Government's aim, guided by the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing, will be to build on those skills as we develop a policing service for the Northern Ireland of the future.
Many other areas require to be touched on, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with those in her response to the Select Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must conclude the debate at that point and proceed to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I call Mr. Luff.

Flood and Coastal Defence

[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, Flood and Coastal Defence (HC 707), and the Replies by the Government and the Environment Agency thereto (HC 1117).]

11 am

Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate this important subject. Politicians, much as they often like to pretend otherwise, cannot solve every problem. We certainly cannot change the power of the elements, nor alter inevitable geological processes. When we intervene imperfectly we can make matters much worse. So it is that Minehead is currently angry about losing its beach as a result of incomplete coastal defence scheme work. On the other hand, I believe that Eastbourne has benefited from a modest influx of geological ambulance chasers after the dramatic collapse of a section of Beachy Head. More seriously, the people of Northampton are still counting the heavy cost of last year's floods.
We must learn to be a little more humble about flood and coastal defence, although we can make sure that the organisations established to deal with those issues are well structured and appropriately financed. We must avoid counter-productive interventions with natural processes, while ensuring that the things we do to safeguard human life and property from those natural forces have a benign effect on the environment, wherever possible. Those considerations are what the Committee's report is all about.
This is a complex policy area in which a large number of organisations are involved in formulating and implementing policy. Many of the arguments are intractable—local level accountability versus policy efficiency and effectiveness, and the survival of coastal communities in the face of remorseless natural processes. That is all underpinned by a profoundly complex legislative base, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would acknowledge.
The mere announcement of the Select Committee's inquiry prompted the worst floods in living memory in my own constituency. Today I am speaking primarily as a Select Committee Chairman, but I am also a constituency MP and hope that I may be allowed a word of warning. If the Deputy Prime Minister visits your constituency—by helicopter, as he had to because that was the only way to get to Evesham at the time, to be absolutely fair—at the height of floods, promising full reimbursement for the unavoidable actions of local authorities, do not believe him. Wychavon district council is certainly well out of pocket for things it paid for off the back of precisely such an assurance, but which the Deputy Prime Minster's Department now regards as fully insurable risks.
I return to my main theme. The Committee is indebted to our specialist adviser, Professor John Pethick of the university of Newcastle, for guiding us through those complexities with such great aplomb. The Committee staff, too, responded magnificently to the many demands


that we placed upon them. Latest projections of climate change and sea level rise were central to our considerations.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting is taking place in Montgomeryshire on the question of climate change? Does he agree that it is prudent of Severn Trent, the Environment Agency and other organisations to organise a major conference on that matter in May?

Mr. Luff: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Severn Trent has taken an enlightened interest in climate change and has certainly been helpful to me in my work in my constituency—an area that the company also serves.
On climate change, may I say to the Meteorological Office that we were grateful for its evidence and that we are sorry that it misunderstood our report? Nothing in the report should be construed as being critical of the Meteorological Office. It is a matter of fact that the Meteorological Office could not predict—and could not have been expected to have predicted—the severity of the 1998 Easter floods. The Committee's recommendations on funding were intended to be helpful to the Meteorological Office and I was disappointed that it did not understand that. Climate change makes dramatic events more frequent, but no easier to predict.
It is also right that I should point out that we found high and growing regard for the general approach of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to those complicated issues and for the policies that the Ministry seeks to implement. However, we commented on the
relative failure of MAFF to instil a sense of drive, purpose and direction in the new policy among relevant operating authorities.
Our report was not simply about managed realignment of the coast in carefully selected areas, although the national press picked up almost exclusively on that issue last August, often misrepresenting us quite heroically. We were given some marvellous headlines: Anthony Bevins wrote a pretty fair piece in The Express, which certainly did not even begin to justify the paper's screaming front-page headline
Let Britain Sink Say MPs".
However, I am grateful to The Express headline writers for giving me a chuckle and a good cutting for my office wall. Of course, the headline drove others back to read the report itself, for which I am also grateful.
In its reply to the Committee, the Environment Agency said that the report was timely and had recognised the issues facing flood defence in England and Wales into the next millennium. Its response stated:
The Report challenges all parties involved to deliver a more efficient, effective and consistent service to the public.
The report was also fairly well received by the Government. Their reply described it as a
valuable contribution to the debate on a highly important subject".
The Parliamentary Secretary—I am glad that he is in the Chamber today—characterised our findings as
an important advance. It dealt with serious issues in a balanced, thoughtful and weighty way".—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1088.]

Understandably, perhaps, there was a slightly more guarded response from the farming industry, but I was impressed by the considered response that came from an area affected by rapid coastal erosion. An editorial in the East Anglian Daily Times asked:
Where would be the attraction of the (East Anglian) Heritage Coast if it were hidden behind what the MPs call 'an unbreachable Maginot line of towering sea walls and flood defences'"?
The East Anglian Daily Times recognised that our recommendation to realign the coast at appropriate locations
would require sea defences to be moved back only a few tens of metres
to yield considerable environmental and social benefits. It would affect hundreds, at most a couple of thousand, hectares of land on the east English coast, and not the vast tracts conjured up by some parts of the national press.
Most tellingly, the editorial continued:
Accepting this change of policy is actually a matter of accepting the inevitable: there is no realistic alternative.
That is the central message of our report.
More recently, after the collapse at Beachy Head, a leading article in The Times expressed broad agreement with the Committee's conclusions, recommending greater reliance on soft engineering approaches to coastal defence where appropriate. The Times commented:
Spending more taxpayers' money on concrete walls may well be akin to pouring money into the sea, a futile attempt to control nature.
In the limited time that I have at my disposal, I want to draw out three of the report's principal themes—institutions, funding and planning. First, in relation to institutions, current Government policy on flood and coastal defence faces considerable problems in being delivered on the ground. The Committee called for a national consultation on the administrative and organisational structures currently in place, and for the Government to rationalise the fiendishly complex legislative base of policy as soon as possible.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman mentioned flood defences. He will be aware that in Herefordshire, during the recent floods, a farmer was killed, and that one difference between those floods—which I know also affected Worcestershire—and previous floods, such as the Easter floods, was that the Environment Agency and the police monitored effectively a surge of water coming down the River Wye. Water levels rose and then fell. The generally accepted view locally was that that was because Welsh Water had opened the gates on the reservoirs to cause that surge. Would the hon. Gentleman like the water authorities to be included as part of the review?

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I shall be interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I, too, heard those accusations locally, and they need to be addressed. Management of rivers is a complex issue, and one that I have no time to examine in my speech, although the Committee considered it in some depth. I agree that there are matters of concern, not only at the larger level to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but at local level in relation to the maintenance of non-main rivers. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take them on board.
In essence, the report stated that the existing coastal groups should be put on a statutory basis and should address coastal issues, while regional flood defence committees should deal with rivers. There should be a slimming down of a number of local flood defence committees.
The Government's response was, to put it charitably, cautious. While they did not agree that a radical overhaul was necessary, the Ministry announced that it would discuss with the Environment Agency and regional committees the preparation of guidance on the continued need for local flood defence committees and the appropriate number and composition of those committees. That is an encouraging step towards the more wide-ranging administrative review for which the Committee had hoped.
The Environment Agency noted that
we are sympathetic to the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a review to a single tier of Regional Flood Defence Committees".
Although the Government might have dismissed our suggestion for radical institutional reform, the Environment Agency noted its
full support for the main emphasis of the Agriculture Select Committee's report … that there is an urgent need to streamline flood and coastal defence institutional and financial arrangements to achieve a more efficient, effective and value for money service that can deliver long term sustainable policies".
Even the Ministry admits—I quote again from its response—that
more needs to be done to translate the national strategy into action on the ground".
We believe that that can be achieved only through reforming a system of policy delivery that has grown on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis over several decades. The current sticking-plaster approach advocated by the Ministry is not, in our opinion, the best way forward. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has changed his mind since he responded to our report.
If Government policy is to be delivered effectively, current levels of funding, and the way in which those funds are allocated, must be reconsidered. Our report recognised the urgent need for extensive renovation and, in some areas, the replacement of coastal defence works over the next decade—so much for letting Britain sink.
A critical part of that process is knowing the precise state of repair of those defences. The Committee pointed out that MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should undertake a joint review of the funding mechanisms currently in place, with two aims. The review should ensure that those mechanisms are the most efficient way of delivering funds to operating authorities and that they do not prejudice decisions against the maintenance of existing works in favour of the construction of new works, which can have unwelcome environmental effects.
We urged the Government to consult all operating authorities on current funding arrangements, with a view to simplifying those arrangements radically and achieving measurable improvements in policy efficiency by cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and administration. The Government accepted our call for an interdepartmental review of funding mechanisms. What progress has been made with the review? Will it also suggest ways of streamlining the administrative and bureaucratic complexities of the current system more generally?
Has the Minister consulted the Environment Agency on restructuring funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defence? What further guidance is he considering for operating authorities on the balance to be struck between capital and maintenance? As for the state of repair of flood and coastal defences, what progress has been made on the development of an asset database for all defences, irrespective of ownership? Does the Minister agree with the Environment Agency's observation to the Committee that, even after the comprehensive spending review, there is a "noticeable shortfall" in national funding, which may result in
the Government's priorities … not being adequately met"?
The third important issue is property development on flood plain land. We discovered a legacy of inappropriate development in flood-prone areas, and exposed a national planning system that still does not accord sufficient importance to flood and coastal defence priorities. That certainly contributed to the severity of floods in the midlands last Easter, in Evesham, in my constituency, and in Northampton.
We argued for a clear presumption against future development on flood plain land, where the flooding or erosion risk attached to a particular development, as determined by the Environment Agency, outweighs the benefits. We said that the agency should make it clear to property developers and local authorities alike that it will vigorously oppose all inappropriate development on rapidly eroding coasts and flood plain land, referring the matter to the Secretary of State where necessary. We said that, in exceptional circumstances when planning permission on land liable to flooding is considered, the agency should be granted powers to require developers to set aside sufficient moneys for the provision of all necessary flood defence works.
It is fair to say that the Government's reply did not go as far as the Committee would have liked. The Government noted, however, that they would consider whether the present guidance to local authorities on development should be strengthened. They also undertook to review whether stronger guidance was needed in relation to the financial contributions that developers should make towards flood defences. The large amount of new house building that the Government believe is necessary makes the issue genuinely urgent.
Clarification of the Government's latest thinking would be appreciated, especially in view of the unequivocal endorsement of the Committee's position from the Environment Agency. I should also like to hear from the Minister whether the agency is on course to complete its flood risk mapping exercise by September this year. In the light of last year's Easter floods, we said that should be its main priority.
There remain a number of other issues that the Government did not resolve to our satisfaction. I shall deal with just two: strategy and compensation. Those issues are related.
The Government have an enlightened strategic approach to policy aims and objectives, which has established the foundations for a more sustainable flood and coastal defence policy. The Minister, his predecessors and his Department deserve praise for their work. The Department must now turn its attention to gauging the long-term implications for policy of the approach that


the Government advocate. As the Department recognises, and as the Government say in their response, there is a need for
thoroughly evaluated, flexible and imaginative responses
to the future challenges posed by rivers inundating flood plains, storm surges on the coast and rapid rates of coastal erosion. On the east coast of England, those rates are as fast as any in Europe.
If the Government's response proves to be no more than warm words, they should at least, as a first step, assess the financial implications of their endorsement of soft defences and managed realignment. The Environment Agency broadly agrees with that, commenting:
The Government should produce clear policy guidelines on current compensation mechanisms and how they should be applied in future".
Clarification from the Minister on the Government's guiding strategy on the coast and inland would be welcome. In particular, what is being done to encourage operating authorities to address the Government's policy aims by setting targets?
That leads me to my last point, which concerns compensation. I found that aspect of the Government's response particularly disappointing. If individuals are required to make sacrifices for some wider social benefit, they should be compensated. Let us take the case of Mr. David Rusbridge of West Wittering, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Mr. Rusbridge wrote to me recently that managed realignment was a possibility in his part of Sussex, and that he might be required to sacrifice some 100 acres of his 400-acre farm. Before the 1950s, coastal landowners were responsible for the maintenance of sea defences. That responsibility was removed from them, but they were told that the land that they owned would be defended. On that basis, Mr. Rusbridge has invested in his land. Now he faces immense uncertainty. I believe that, if he is required to lose 100 acres of land worth £150,000 to £200,000, he should be compensated. It is not right for one individual to bear the cost of protecting the rest of us.
I understand that the Minister can sometimes provide compensation by means of environmental routes in such circumstances, but that is not the principle. Compensation should not depend on the lottery of environmental gain. We said in our report:
We are firmly convinced of the need to put in place a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement of property owners and landowners whose assets are sacrificed for the wider benefit of the community … In our opinion, the Ministry has postponed this task for too long and should investigate the practicalities of such a mechanism urgently.
If landowners are not compensated, what incentive is there for them to support the kind of sustainable solutions that our Committee called for, and which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now rightly advocates? That complaint should probably be laid at the door of the Treasury, not MAFF, but Government as a whole must address it if genuinely sustainable policies are to be made acceptable to coastal communities.
Certain things are unavoidable. Climate change is leading to rising sea water levels, and, it seems, to increased storminess. The geological tilt of the United

Kingdom into the English channel and the North sea is making the problem worse. There will come a time when we cannot defend land that currently seems secure. London itself is not immune. No flood barrier can work for ever. In 200 or 300 years, the effects on London will be profound. We described them in our report. If the Government really want the millennium celebrations to do something good for London in the long term, when the dome reaches the end of its life they should not put new buildings on the site. They should pull it down, and create washlands on the Greenwich peninsula. That would be real joined-up government, providing an effective flood defence and a huge gain for London's environment. It would be one measure of the success of our report. Similarly, if the report gives planning authorities pause for thought, we shall have done our job. If we stop piling up new problems for future generations, I shall be well pleased.
Canute knew the limits of his powers, and sought to demonstrate them to his courtiers. For his pains, history remembers him wrongly as the king who thought that he could command the sea. He could not do that then, and we cannot do it now. We can, however, go with the grain of coastal processes, and develop sustainable answers to difficult issues. If we learn that lesson, the report will have made a difference that matters.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who chairs the Select Committee on Agriculture. I agree with much of what he has said.
I have the privilege of representing a division of the county of Essex, and, although my division has no coastline, the county has an extensive coastline, running from London to Harwich and containing many inlets, estuaries, islands and coves. The soil on which the sea dashes is very soft, and people in Essex have been mindful of the risks of flooding for many centuries.
Canvey island, of historic and sad memory, was the scene of the 1953 flood disaster, in which 59 people lost their lives. In many respects, it represents the endless struggle of mankind with the elements. The Dutch reclaimed it from the sea in the 17th century, and it has been at risk of being reclaimed by the sea ever since then.
County councillor Ray Howard is a close friend of mine, although he is a member of another political party. He represents Canvey island, and is also a member of the Essex flood defence committee. I spoke to him earlier this week. He takes a great interest in the Select Committee's deliberations, and in what we are debating today. He has served on the flood defence committee for many years, and he is well aware that the barriers on the lower Thames are being closed much more often nowadays. That suggests that tides are rising, and that we face potential further disasters. Although protection mechanisms on the Thames and on other parts of the Essex coast are much more substantial and secure than they were in the 1950s, concern remains.
Councillor Howard would perhaps differ from one aspect of the Select Committee's conclusions, as indeed I do. It is with regard to democratic representation. Although I understand the logic of seeking co-ordination through regional committees, I am fearful, as I believe


other local people are, that the elected representation serving on those committees will be diminished. If we take that away, with less involvement by those who are aware of the problems in their localities, problems are almost bound to follow.
Recently, as part of the inquiry, I, the Chairman of the Select Committee and others visited Peterborough to discuss flood warning arrangements with the Environment Agency. It showed us in embryonic form fairly advanced and complex mechanisms, whereby computerised telephone systems would effect warnings to those in areas at risk.
In many ways, I applaud such progress, but we may be a little rash in overlooking more rudimentary defence devices such as the siren. I make a special plea for the use of siren to be considered more. The advantage that it has over advanced technology is that it is not put out if a sudden storm cuts out electricity. It is there for all to see. It is dramatic. It pierces the ear. It is clear to anyone who hears it that something is afoot. If use of the siren—which is used in parts of Essex to great effect—were more widespread, we would have extra assurance.
I agree entirely with the remarks by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire concerning building in the flood plain. Developers have had easy incentive to go for profit because the land is normally easier to build on than more rugged or upland areas. The attraction is obvious. Local planning authorities have perhaps been a little too eager to grant those consents in those areas, some unmindful that the cost of the protection may not fall on the developer or on them, but on the state as a whole, in its various forms.
I support the remarks by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire concerning strengthening the planning process. Vendors of properties should make the views of the Environment Agency as to the flood risk known to the purchaser; indeed, it should be an obligation. There should be greater liaison with insurance companies as to the risk involved when properties are built in those areas. The views and recommendations of the Environment Agency as to the flood risk should be prominent in making a local authority search. One might reach the point where that recommendation or view is endorsed on the title deeds and on the land certificate.
All those matters would be governed by the principle of caveat emptor. The purchaser would beware, so the developer would also beware if there were a risk that he could not sell the properties that he had built. It is such a easy matter for him to build the property, to take the profit and to let the cost thereafter fall on the rest of us.
I address what is now euphemistically called managed realignment; only a few months ago, it was called managed retreat. I support the view of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. There is often a good case for proceeding in that way. Time does not stand still. The report refers to the fact that 21 villages in the county of Norfolk have disappeared into the sea since the 11th century, the most famous being the well-known rotten borough of Dunwich.
I have been there many times. I am always told that, in stormy weather, I should be able to hear the bells clanking from the bottom of the sea. I have not heard them yet, but I do know that that part of Dunwich is no longer there because it has gone back to the sea. However, on other

parts of the east coast—I have already mentioned Canvey island—we have reclaimed from the sea. Fenlands are reclaimed from the sea.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to my constituency. Were it not for drainage, my constituency would not exist, or the vast bulk of it would not exist. [Interruption.] Whatever reaction that stimulates, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as holding the sea back, drainage is an important part of these considerations? It is about pumping water out, as well as stopping water coming in. That is critical.

Mr. Hurst: I am pleased to agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I often do in such less controversial matters. I am fully aware that, were Hereward the Wake alive today, he would not be able to evade the Normans as readily as he did in former times, but the hon. Gentleman is right. Were it not for the drainage patterns in those areas, any attempt to hold back the sea would be purposeless because the area would eventually flood in any event.
Where we take a view—often it is a sound view—that we should alter the line of the coast to take account of advances of the sea, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, it is right and proper that those who own the land adjacent thereto be properly compensated. Indeed, we need to achieve a balance between protecting rich agricultural lands, which are often found on the east coast, and preserving the natural environment as it once was.
The Ministry certainly deserves a degree of congratulation on that aspect. It has supported the European Union habitat directive, is committed to seeking to preserve sites of high scientific interest and, where that is not possible, to seeking a replacement to sites elsewhere.
There is not an inevitable conflict between farming and wildlife and habitat preservation. The two are indelibly part of the countryside. They are often perceived to be in conflict, but they are not. There is a strong case that, where society decides to draw back the line of coastal defence, the owner of the land should be properly paid for what he has given up because he is giving it up on behalf of all of us, not just on behalf of himself.
Where habitat is lost and cannot be replaced, there is also a case for compensation. The problem is that such compensation cannot be easily valued in monetary terms. We can ascertain through a land agent the price per acre of prime agricultural land, but we cannot determine so easily what the market price is of a reed bed. It is not possible to say. What would we pay for the nesting site of marsh harriers? There is no list of valuations.
That is why I am encouraged that, when there is a risk to such areas, we will seek to replace them if they cannot be preserved, but we need to ensure that those who preserve such parts of the country are not the losers, just as the landowner should not be the loser when he gives up his land to the advances of the sea.
The report has dealt with a number of issues that are highly pertinent to the important issue of coastal defence. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire on putting it forward in such a way.

Mr. Andrew George: In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I will keep my contribution short, in the hope also that the House will enjoy two contributions from the Liberal Democrats, if time allows.
I wish to make a few remarks on the key message of the report in terms of overviewing the whole approach to coastal and flood defence, on one issue of funding that causes concern in my area and on planning.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on his excellent introduction, which I entirely endorse. It has been a joy to be a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture and to produce what is a particularly pertinent, relevant and significant report, which I hope the Minister has taken on board.
I endorse the report's key message on managed realignment and the use of soft engineering. It recognises that we cannot win our battle with the sea and climate without bankrupting the country.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we cannot play King Canute with public finances and public policy. We have to accept that there are limitations to our ability to tame and control nature. Forecast sea level rises for the next 50 years of between 4 and 6 mm annually—which does not take into account the impact of other geomorphological changes—should help to concentrate the mind. Geologically, the land is moving at an alarming rate. As I explained to the Select Committee, it is perhaps symbolic that, as Cornwall is rising, England is falling.
I know that the Minister is aware that the current funding mechanism—particularly moneys from local authorities—is causing difficulties for regional flood defence committees. As we know, local authorities are under specific financial pressures. The advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that local authorities should pass on to the Environment Agency all flood levies for flood defence—exactly in line with national provision of standard spending assessments for flood defence—whereas the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions says that SSAs are a mechanism for grant distribution based on a formula on which local authorities should exercise judgment in funding priorities. The funding mechanism is a source of growing tension between local authorities and the Environment Agency, and operates in a climate in which the Environment Agency's budget for some regions, such as mine, is falling. The issue certainly has to be addressed.
As the House knows, an additional 4.4 million homes will have to be built across the country, and somewhere will have to be found to build them. As the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Mid Worcestershire rightly said, it is appropriate that the Government should be a great deal more robust than previous Governments have been in addressing the issue. It is nonsense to allow further development in flood plains or vulnerable coastal zones that have no flood or coastal defence.
The Select Committee and I seek the Government's acceptance that the Environment Agency should have a statutory right to be involved at every stage of the planning process in what will be—or should be—easily defined zones.

Mr. Keetch: Does my hon. Friend, and other Committee members, accept that the prime consideration

is not only planning and building on flood plains but the type of agriculture that is practised on those flood plains? Potato cultivation, for example, dries up water meadows—so that they cannot soak up water, silt runs off and rivers become clogged.

Mr. George: I agree entirely.
Flood plains and coastal areas may provide a picturesque or sublime view for private individuals, but too often the public purse has to meet the costs of sustaining those views. The matter will have to be reviewed, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Part of my constituency is under water. The Isle of Sheppey is always below sea level, and consequently has problems that other areas in Britain do not have. In 1897, and in the past century—in 1928 and 1953—we had floods in which three quarters of Sheerness disappeared.
Today, at 6.30 am, I woke up to the local newspaper, the Sheppey Gazette, which somewhat discourteously informed me that
Sheppey was mopping up—and counting the cost—after massive floods hit the north of the island … Mrs Raymond said: 'It was terrifying. The lights failed and we were plunged into darkness. The children were very frightened and then water started to flood in downstairs. In places, the water was up to 3ft deep.
Island councillor Steve Worrall … voicing the fears of elderly and disabled people … said: 'There are so many old people living at ground floor level. They dread the waters returning.'
Then I realised that, in today's newspaper, I was reading the memory section, which was describing the 1979 floods. However, my constituency is prone to flooding, as we are below sea level and have unique properties.
I should like to congratulate the Agriculture Select Committee on its work, which is outstanding. Although Select Committees are not often praised, I offer my congratulations to its members.
I was marginally amused by the picture of the Thames barrier on the cover of the Select Committee's report—only because the barrier has added to our problems in Sheerness. I wonder whether the Minister knows of any studies done by the Ministry, or of other studies that have been commissioned, on the barrier's implications for areas further down the Thames.
I also ask—out of interest, not as criticism—why, in the report's list of memorandums of evidence and list of appendices, on pages li and lii, no evidence from Kent was listed? There was nothing from Kent county council, from Swale borough council—which is part of my constituency—from Queenborough town council or from Sheerness. Although it may have been an oversight on their part—if so, more the fool them—I also wonder what happened in Kent to the Committee's request for information. A substantial part of Kent is coastal. Certainly some parts of the Isle of Sheppey—and of the former Isle of Thanet; it is no longer an island—are always below sea level. On the east side of Kent, we have had phenomenal coastal erosion.
I take issue on one matter. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, there seem to be a plethora of agencies and activities dealing with flood


and coastal defence. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to the debate, I wonder whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should not be responsible for the matter. I wonder also whether, in England, the responsibility should not be given to regional development agencies. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's comments on the matter.
Coincidentally, we are able to consider not only the Select Committee's report, but the Environment Agency's plans for my constituency, which are in a document entitled "Isle of Sheppey Strategy Plan, Summary Document, January 1999". It contains some wonderful pieces, some of which I should like to quote.
The document states:
An assessment of the current standards has concluded that although the standards of the northern sea walls are quite high (100 to 200 years), the southern clay embankments have standards of five years or even less. Without continued maintenance of the defences, the standard would fall even further and breaching would become inevitable. As the flood risk area is mainly below mean high water levels, breaching of the defences would eventually lead to permanent flooding of the entire flood risk area and abandonment of a great number of properties.
It is a nice way of describing Queenborough and Halfway, which are two of the largest villages on the island.
I should like to quote another section, which I fail to comprehend fully. It states:
The present value cost of the Strategy over the next 50 years including works to the southern defences"—
of the island—
is estimated at £22.6 million, including capital costs, preliminaries, contingencies, design and supervision … The present value benefits"—
whatever that means—
(or damages avoided)"—
I pass
are estimated at £369 million resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 16.3.
That was certainly gobbledegook to me.
I thought that the section was saying essentially that the Environment Agency did not have a strategy for the island. I felt sadness in reading it because of the lack of warmth and humanity shown for the people of the island of Sheppey, which is constantly flooded. Flooding is not a new thing for us. High tides do not come only once every 40 years and affect other parts of Britain; my constituency is constantly being flooded and is always in danger of flooding.
I was very nervous about the idea of—whatever it is called officially—what I call "managed retreat", when the next spring tide arrives on the island. In the report's section on the history of flooding, the appalling hardships caused by flooding is scarcely dealt with. Poor people—Sheppey has had unemployment rates of 40 per cent.—cannot afford, or do not buy, home insurance. If they take it, they buy perhaps rather dubious policies. They are therefore doubly affected by flooding, because they are not able to insure themselves.
I should like to try to tease out where the legal and moral liabilities should lie in the flood and coastal defence recommendations. I take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree on planning issues.
We have new houses all over Sheppey, but they have been built on bits of rough or dubious land. Planning permission should not have been given, and the planning side of the subject must be much stronger.
If managed retreat is introduced on Sheppey, the lives of eight farmers will be ruined for ever. The land at one of the farms—which I have visited—has been leased by, of all things, Crown Properties. By his own ingenious system of irrigation channels, the farmer has created a wildlife sanctuary and new land for sheep grazing, and he has maximised the land's potential to the fullest. It is an exceptional scheme. In addition, because he has been hit—as have most farmers—by the unusually difficult economic conditions of the past three years, he has had it tough twice.
The farmer sought permission for a change of use for an old barn which stored hay, and for some ancillary buildings. He was given it, and he has leased them to small, productive and profitable self-starter companies. Could we wish for more on the Isle of Sheppey? One of the buildings houses a company that makes tarpaulins and, in another, they collect and sell classic cars. Yet another is a stonemason's studio. Under managed retreat—which the Government could decide on in the next few months—who will insure the farmer if he has no insurance? If he is insured, and finds that he is under-insured, who will insure him then? I have not asked him this, as I have assumed that he is insured. However, if the spring tide wipes him out and he is left bankrupt, what then?
I understand that managed retreat is the cheapest option. I urge the Select Committee to analyse the financial implications of its recommendations when it next reports on the matter. I read far too many Select Committee reports—I am as guilty as anyone, as I am a member of a Select Committee—in which recommendations have no budget or financial model, so we have no opportunity to find the best option. With no resolution on a compensation package before the next flood, the eight farmers on the island are caught between assurance and insurance.
Managed retreat will affect confidence in my community and add to the insecurity that affects all islanders. It could also affect the town of Queenborough, which has a population of 5,000, and the large village of Halfway. From today, any business man thinking of investing will think again, and a downward spiral will then become inevitable—after we have spent the past 10 years trying to provide the island with as much European and Government aid as possible.
Islands are strange places—they feel protective. The first people came to live on Sheppey in the sixth century, and the island has never been connected to the mainland. We hope to have a new bridge by 2001, but it has always had a swing bridge or an up-bridge. It feels its identity as an island. Managed retreat will not sustain the psychology of the island—it will damage it. That has been overlooked by the Environment Agency and the Select Committee report.
Governments tend to be reactive—that is the nature of the beast. However, yesterday the Prime Minister explained the planning required if we were to go into the euro. As we know that there will be a major flood—there is no doubt about it—I wonder whether we could have the same level of planning, particularly as regards


compensation packages. I wonder whether we could look at this matter now, before thousands of claims are made. We need five or six ideas for compensation packages.
Ultimately, the island will be cut off from the mainland. How will the population of 35,000 get food and blankets? Are we prepared for that? This is a complex issue and it is easy to make simplistic remarks, but the island always suffers in bad weather. It cannot help that—that is the nature of the island. However, we put people there, we have given them authority to build and we have taken businesses there. We have a moral duty to look after people.
The matter is complex, and I would have liked to be able to explain some of the maps in the report, which are complex. I wonder whether the House would consider using the parliamentary channel to put slides or one-minute videos up during our speeches to show the implications and consequences of previous floods.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt)—who has knowledge of information technology and new technology—ended on a most interesting note. I share his concern at a matter of growing importance to which the House will return, and to which the Select Committee has helpfully drawn attention. I have heard three members of the Select Committee congratulate themselves on their report and—as an independent, non-partial Member of Parliament—I congratulate them as well.
Members of the Select Committee will not be surprised by my interest, because they received evidence from Somerset county council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Mrs. Katherine Bryan, the head of the south-west Environment Agency. In the appendices, submissions from Mr. Campbell Voullaire and Mr. Mark Blathwayt were published in connection with the Porlock shingle ridge, which is a retreat if ever you saw one—a managed retreat, in which 140 acres of prime farmland is turned into a salt marsh—that has caused great concern in that part of my constituency.
Somerset county council was right to give evidence—one fifth of Somerset is below sea level. We have talked of Hereward the Wake, and I would advance the cause of Alfred, who would not have been half so great had he not been able to hide behind the salt marshes—which are now the Somerset levels—where the pursuing Danes were unable to catch up with him because the tide came across 150,000 acres faster than a horse could gallop. He was able to burn his cakes in reasonable security. That is now important agricultural land, and its drainage and protection are matters of concern.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the evidence from the RSPB, which looked at areas that should not be drained and on which important wetlands exist—some in my constituency. I am familiar with the complexity of the issues, and I am concerned about them. I recognise that they are getting no easier. I have noticed that "retreat" is now called "realignment," which I see as meaning gain, as well as loss. In Somerset, we are in retreat—my constituency is shrinking—and there is no sign of any gain on any part of the Somerset coastline, which is under threat. I understand that Professor Pethick—who was an adviser to the Select Committee—is familiar with the coastline.
There has been an imperceptible change of belief, rather than a particular moment when the existence of climate change was publicly accepted. I have believed it, on a hunch, for a long time, in the face of the public dismissal by many authorities, who talked of the failure to understand the cyclical nature of climate, the history of the ice ages and the various patterns of climate and weather over the centuries. Now, there is a general recognition of it.
I do not know when the Environment Agency changed its policy, but it is now accepted that there is climate change, and that we must deal with the risk of more serious events happening more frequently. We have read this morning of the horrors of the avalanches in Austria, and two avalanches came down yesterday on a village that had never had one before and was regarded as completely safe. That is a further illustration of the changes to, and the severity of, the weather.
As well as global warming and rising sea levels, there is the increasing severity, and frequency of violent events. There are also man-made contributions to that frequency and severity. This hit me most forcibly when I was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Strabane was badly flooded. I was there 24 hours later, and it was impossible to understand why it had been flooded. Half the town had been flooded severely, and a lot of damage was done. By the time that I got there, the river level was right down. The water, which had been brimming to the top of an extremely high bridge, was looking harmless and low.
An old gentleman standing nearby, whom my officials tried to keep away from me because they thought that he was a bit of an old crank, made the pretty obvious point that such things did not happen in the old days, before all the drainage work on the farms, when the river took a long time to come up, stayed up for a long time and took some time to go down. I live in an old mill and have been flooded. I have seen the effects of adjacent motorways and new developments. When there is significant rainfall, it runs off faster and arrives quicker and in greater volume. The water stays for less time, but it does greater damage.
Curry moor in my constituency is the flood plain into which the River Parrett and the River Tone discharge themselves. The situation for the villagers of East Lyng, which is on the border with the constituency of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), is more dangerous now. They say that the speed with which the floods arrive contributes to the danger.
I should like to contribute some brief messages of support for the Select Committee report. My only disagreement is on the odd recommendation that
Insurance companies should be obliged to provide advice to individuals in flood risk areas as to how to mitigate the effects of flooding".
I agree that they should be encouraged
to address property and asset claims afterwards to ensure their rapid settlement.
I do not know what feedback insurance companies have given, but the recommendation suggests that they should take responsibility for giving adequate advice about flooding. I do not instinctively think that that is the job of insurance companies, but others may like to discuss that.
There is a clear need for greater resources. I recognise that the Government have increased the resources available tinder the three-year comprehensive spending


review. Somerset has £500 million of assets for flood defence and coastal protection. Expenditure on those assets this year will be £8 million. Those assets could not be maintained with those resources if the situation were static or even if the threat were declining. In fact, the threat is increasing. We are faced with the appalling prospect of having to try to build another 50,000 houses in Somerset, with one fifth of our county below sea level. As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey pointed out, we shall end up with housing in unsuitable places, which will increase the problems and the demand for help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has already referred to the problem at Minehead. Minehead has a desirable sandy beach, which is rapidly disappearing because we are two thirds of the way through an important coastal protection scheme. After the serious damage done to the sea defences in Minehead, important work has been carried out to put the main defences in place. The last element is a surcharge of sand across the beach. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of money, or the programme has run ahead of itself. I understand that the Environment Agency recognises that, unless something is done now, there is a serious risk that the work that has already been carried out will be damaged and further costs will be incurred. I believe that the Environment Agency is likely to approach the Minister for authority for certain facilities to enable the work to go ahead. I hope that he will be able to respond sympathetically.
Almost every Select Committee report recommends a reorganisation and finds reasons why something should be changed. I have lived through the same building bearing the successive nameplates of the Somerset River Authority, the Wessex Water Authority, the Wessex division of the National Rivers Authority and now the North Wessex Environment Agency. Change usually leads to problems of hiatus, delay and people not taking decisions because they are wondering what job they will have in the new organisation. Select Committees should proceed with great care when proposing further reorganisations. That is why I have some suspicion about the proposal for regional flood defence committees. A bit of evolutionary change would be better than wholesale reorganisation in this case. The Select Committee warned that such a change would require primary legislation. The chances of securing time for that in the short term are pretty slim, so why not accept that the best is the enemy of the good and go for evolutionary change that would secure rationalisation of the present confusing structure without the wholesale upheaval that regional flood defence committees would entail?

Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend is probably right in the case of his area, but we saw the problems on the east coast of England, where one set of authorities is taking decisions that impact on another set of authorities with different responsibilities. One group deals with coastal erosion and another with coastal flooding. They work against each other rather than together. The evolutionary approach will not work in that case. Radical change is essential for coastal issues.

Mr. King: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's point. I have found the structure confusing and get muddled about who is dealing with what. There is some

playing off of one body against another. He will have heard my warning that major upheaval often leads to major hiatus, which we cannot afford.
I have always found internal drainage boards, of which there are several in my constituency, rather curious. There is every argument for changing them or getting rid of them, but they deal with minor problems at a local level that the Environment Agency should not be bogged down with. There are arguments on the Somerset levels about keeping levels to within 6 in, 3 in or even 1 in, so that the water is held up to a certain level in some areas that the RSPB is interested in, and lower in other areas where the farmers can harvest their crops. Those details are much better worked out locally. The Environment Agency's recommendation for a rationalisation of IDBs is better than a wholesale dismissal.
There is all-party recognition of the importance of the role of the Environment Agency—under its present and previous names—and its greater significance to the modern world. It has not yet understood that. There is a timidity about the agency's position. Hon. Members have spoken about the need for it to assert itself more on planning and other issues. It should be encouraged to realise that it has powers. It may have to face some tough times with developers and others, but it must be prepared to stand up and fight its corner and know that it will have greater support than it realises in the House and among the public.
I appreciate having had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and I congratulate the Select Committee on its report on an important issue.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: My constituency is bounded by approximately 30 miles of coastline. Two of our communities—Formby and Hightown—are under threat. Formby is bounded by extensive woodland and faces significant erosion. It also contains a site of special scientific interest and has world status for its dune structure. However, the site faces many difficulties. Three or four miles down the coast, Hightown faces different problems. Formby has no property directly on the coastline, but in Hightown there are properties 200 ft from the shore. We are starting to contemplate the influence of climate change and rising sea levels on those two distinct communities.
During the past six months, Sefton council has got to grips with the difficult task of constructing a coastal management plan and a shoreline management plan. Both plans have been produced. They are 90 pages long and have been distributed to more than 100 organisations.
Opinions are being sought from everyone, from individuals with a vested interest in the development of the shore to societies such as the RSPB and myriad organisations. Therein lies a problem. Many of the individuals concerned are producing reports and views on the plans that will need to be collated before another plan is produced. There are conflicting views about how best to develop the shoreline and the different vested interests confuse matters. It would help enormously if we could rationalise the number of individuals involved. I continually ask who are the experts who will decide how to proceed and wherein lies their expertise.
I welcome the fact that the Government's response to the report says that they are considering an integrated coastal zone management plan. Many of our local


problems have been exacerbated by what is going on further along the coast adjacent to Sefton. Unless there is some attempt to integrate the various agencies along the coastline, many of us will be the victims of other people's protection.
A new development has been built in Southport, which is essential if we are to defend the economy and let the resort prosper, but it has exacerbated problems in Hightown. In the past, we could protect the small community of only 1,000 people in approximately 700 houses because there was a reasonable rate of erosion that could be managed by the dumping of sand; but now we simply cannot cope with the rate at which sand is being removed.
We seek sustainable solutions for some parts of the coastline and hard solutions for others. I expect that we will find sustainable solutions for Formby, provided that we can agree. English Nature, along with another 40 agencies, manages the Formby coastline. It is set on taking at least half the pine woods away in an attempt to develop the dune structure, but we do not think that it has developed coherent arguments to justify that and many people in my constituency firmly believe that it will reduce our flood defences even further.
Until we have expert opinions that can be accepted by the different factions in the community, the region will be insecure and lack the confidence to develop inward investment, albeit on a small scale. Hightown was allowed to develop. It is a lovely, attractive, isolated community. It is quite perfect: lovely modern houses and flats, protected, for the most part, by bluff sand dunes.
Most of the residents do not know what is happening behind the sand dunes, but many do. The dunes are being eroded more or less daily. Sea levels rising between 4 mm and 6 mm, every year for the next 50 years, can bring nothing but disaster for the community. We will need about £8 million to construct a hard sea defence to protect the residents of Hightown.
I understand that, in return for being allowed to build the properties in the area, the developers contributed £800,000. That is nothing in comparison with the cost of the defences that we will have to construct to protect the properties in the long term. I would commend any action that invites the developers to play a greater role in the defence of the properties before they are allowed to build.
We need far greater emphasis in the planning regulations on the role and responsibility of the developer and on appropriate flood and erosion assessments.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I strongly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said about the report and about the fact that there has been some mutual self-congratulation by the authors, but as I am not an author I can congratulate them in all sincerity from some distance.
I have a constituency interest because Selsey was flooded just over a year ago. That was my introduction to this issue. I have had lengthy exchanges with the Minister, and I thank him very much for his courtesy and for the time that he has taken to listen to my concerns. By that alone, he has shown what is required to help to allay some local concerns.
Despite the Government's response to the report, I do not think that we will get the cost-benefit analysis that we need. First, the relationship between spending on maintenance and on capital needs to be considered. We are in a catch-22 situation in Selsey, as in many other areas, where money spent on maintenance comes from a budget that could ultimately be used to build permanent sea defences. That seems a crazy situation. I am also worried that the spending on Selsey could delay work on the Chichester flood relief scheme, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that that will not be the case.
Secondly, I am concerned that no serious consideration is being given to overall revenue flows from land that could be lost through strategic retreat. For example, there is a caravan site in Selsey that generates large revenues for the Exchequer, but I understand that those revenues, which could be lost, are not put into the pot to work out the cost-benefit of the proposed strategic retreat. The owner is not being given the opportunity even to say whether he would put up some private cash to maintain his site.
Thirdly, there is compensation. At first sight, compensation seems to be merely an issue of fairness, but in fact it is again a matter of cost-benefit analysis. To work out whether land should be lost, one must determine its value, which should be reflected in the compensation offered to the owner. A constituent recently wrote and said that, before the 1950s, he had been able to choose what to do with sea defences on his land—it was caveat emptor—but that now he has been told that he has no choice and that the land may be lost without his getting any compensation. The Government will eventually have to deal with that unacceptable situation.
The speed at which some decisions are being taken, certainly in my area, is unsatisfactory. The continued uncertainty in Selsey is the cause of great local concern. Few people have been convinced that strategic retreat, managed retreat, managed realignment, or whatever it may be called, is necessary on the west beach; but if it is—we have been expecting a study from the Environment Agency for about a year—that really must be brought into the open, discussed publicly and explained to local people. That has not happened, and I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to speed the decision, so that we can have clarity in Selsey.

Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter of considerable importance to my constituency. I approach the issue unashamedly from a constituency angle. I have tried to find out why essential flood defence works for the coast at Seaford and in Lewes town are not being funded. I asked the Library for information about the funding of flood defence works and it provided a helpful diagram.

Mr. Tom King: We need a screen.

Mr. Baker: If we had a screen, I could project the diagram for the House. It demonstrates the intricacies of the funding arrangements and the problems that exist. Lord de Ramsey, the chairman of the Environment Agency, wrote to me on 15 February admitting that
we have an overall shortfall of some £4M in the funding which Flood Defence Committees have made available for 1999/2000.


His letter continues:
Under current arrangements for funding Flood Defence the Agency has no powers to interfere in the democratic process whereby Flood Defence Committees approve their levies.
The problem seems to be that the Environment Agency, as the body responsible for assessing what work needs to be done, has determined that certain works should be done in my constituency, but the flood defence committee has elected not to fund those works. That leaves my constituents in an impossible situation. The county council's response to that—and it is the local authority members on the flood defence committees who have voted not to fund the work properly—is that levies from external bodies should be exempted when decisions on budget capping are being considered. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that specific point.
I shall explain the position in Seaford and Lewes by means of a quotation from another letter from Lord de Ramsey. He says:
In addition, although the whole Flood Defence Committee endorsed the Agency plan for the coming 12 months, the voting Local Authority members felt that they could not meet the full levy requirement to fund the work. As a result, the levy settlement was cut from an 8 per cent. increase to 6.3 per cent., with a recommendation that major sea defence maintenance at Seaford be halted. Seaford is at the bottom of the Sussex Ouse below Lewes. Any problems or failure of the sea defences here have serious implications for Seaford, nearby Newhaven and Lewes.
A press release issued by the Environment Agency on 9 December after the flood defence committee had agreed not to fund the necessary work stated that it would mean that
essential maintenance will halt. The Agency will be unable to carry out work at Seaford which it considers is essential to the security of the Ouse Valley.
That is worrying indeed and I have written to the Minister, who has kindly replied, on the general subject of the funding of flood defence committees. I do not underestimate the Government's difficulties in trying to deal with the situation, but the Minister will understand that my concerns arise from my constituents' concerns. In Seaford, essential work to protect the coast and properties along the beach will not take place this year, despite the fact that the Environment Agency has deemed it essential for the security of the Ouse valley. All those properties will be left unprotected this year, because the flood defence committee has not voted through the money. That is an irresponsible position, but the consequences for my constituents is that they are unprotected, and that is unsustainable.
I am also concerned about the banks of the Ouse in Lewes. According to the Environment Agency, there is a real danger that the banks will collapse, with all sorts of consequences for properties, business and tourism in the county town. The works that have been identified as essential by the Environment Agency will not proceed in 2000–01. They have been put back further and we do not even have a date for a proper assessment by the flood defence committee of when the work will be incorporated into its budget plan. Lewes and Seaford will be left defenceless because of the myriad arrangements for funding that apply to flood defence work.
The Minister replied to my letter within two weeks, which is amazingly quick for a Government Department. I have also written to the Environment Agency and the chairman of the flood defence committee. The buck is being

passed around, but the result is that none of the work that has been deemed essential by all parties will be carried out. Will the Minister consider the arrangements between the flood defence committees and the Environment Agency? Either the flood defence committees' powers should be taken away and given to the Environment Agency, so that one body deals with the issue, or the flood defence committees should receive the necessary finance and expertise so that decisions can be taken locally. The present arrangements do not work for my constituents. What comfort can the Minister offer to my constituents in Seaford and Lewes who have been left defenceless by the failure to fund essential works?

Mr. John Hayes: I shall dwell on three aspects of the report. I was pleased to serve on the Select Committee and I am grateful for the positive comments that have been made about its work, although the bulk of the credit must go to our Chairman. I am sure that he will reward me for that compliment at an appropriate time in an appropriate place.
My first point relates to development in the flood plain and I wish to amplify some of the remarks that have been made already. There is not much more to say, except that it is important to increase the statutory responsibility on local authorities to take account of Environment Agency advice. There is already a responsibility to consult, but it should have more force than that. I speak as someone who is very interested in local democracy and who values the independence of local authorities, but this issue is so important and the record is so patchy under the current arrangements that we need to strengthen the arm of the Environment Agency.
I also entirely endorse the Committee's recommendations and the comments in the debate today about flood risk warning. The Government made helpful comments on that issue in their response and also on the warnings for the people who buy houses in the flood plain. Many of the communities affected have an incoming population who do not necessarily understand the history of the issue. The local population may be well aware of the problems, but those who move into an area of flood risk may not understand them. Such people live in blissful ignorance until the worst occurs.
The second matter about which I wish to comment is drainage. I felt that my right hon. Friend from Somerset—

Mr. Tom King: Bridgwater.

Mr. Hayes: I am sorry, I should have known. Mr. King: Of course you should.

Mr. Hayes: I was about to criticise mildly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and I am tempted now to strengthen that criticism, but I will not. I disagree with him somewhat about internal drainage boards. He is right to say that they are important, but they are more important than he implied. They are a model of the public and private sectors working together, as lean organisations that act and deliver a product in a very cost effective way. They embody a degree of local knowledge and understanding that is unparalleled—as my right hon. Friend acknowledged. I strongly support IDBs.
The Committee probably paid too little attention to drainage, perhaps because coastal defence and protection from the sea is more dramatic. The need for such protection is more tangible, but drainage is the success story that cannot be seen. Its success makes it invisible and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that we may have spent too little time on it. I wish to advertise the many benefits and qualities of IDBs, which are reflected in the Government's response. I know that the Minister enjoys a long relationship with those bodies and is well regarded by them.
The third aspect of the report on which I shall dwell is the management of flood defence and drainage, which the Committee considered in some detail. At first glance, the structure and organisation seems extremely complex. However, it is difficult to deliver a better alternative, with one exception—the district council's responsibility for coastal defence. When we visited Happisburgh in Norfolk, for example, the idea that the district council should be responsible for funding some of the significant strategic work there seemed to me to be a bit of a nonsense. It is too onerous and demanding a responsibility for a district council to accept. The Chairman of the Select Committee and I were chatting about that, and he asked whether I wanted local democracy for drainage but not for coastal policy. My response was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Drainage works well and has stood the test of time, but coastal policy needs review.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the three main points that I have made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the limited time that remains, I shall certainly try to respond to the points that have been made. All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the quality of the report produced by the Agriculture Committee. It is an excellent piece of work, which I enjoyed reading. It raised a great many questions, as I hope was evident from the Government's comprehensive response.
For the sake of the record, I should declare my involvement as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities—a post that I am proud to hold. I echo what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said about drainage being very much a part of flood defence and coastal defence. The Government's belief that we should adopt an integrated approach to those matters informed our response to the Select Committee report.
I absolutely agree that we need sustainable defences, as they will allow national and local economies to prosper and will protect life and property. As has been noted, we must also take account of wildlife sites of international importance.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a good and succinct opening speech, in which he made it clear that flood and coastal defences are a very complex matter. I do not know whether the Select Committee is psychic, but its report was produced in a year when we have had some of the worst floods and rains for more than a century. We must not forget the tragedy suffered by people who have lost homes, agricultural land

and even their lives as a result. I know that the House accepts that the bad weather caused disruption across the country.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the Hatch End flood alleviation scheme. If implemented, that scheme would complete a programme of measures to protect against flooding in the north-east part of my constituency. Will he assure me that he will keep under review the funding and priority rating formula that he and his officials use to determine whether such schemes go ahead?

Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has raised this matter before, and that he has written to the Ministry about it. I shall write to my hon. Friend with the latest information and I shall take into consideration the points that he has raised.
I do not know whether the visit that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made by helicopter was occasioned by flood levels, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire very nearly also got a similar visit from me. I should point out that it is very rare for me to travel by helicopter, but I wanted to observe the floods in the Severn valley and to visit Bewdley. However, the helicopter developed engine trouble, which does not fill one with confidence before a journey, and the weather was so bad—perhaps not surprisingly—that it was impossible to fly and I had to make the journey by road. Unfortunately, that meant that I was unable to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which was on my original itinerary.
I apologise for that, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was aware of the problems his constituency faced as a result of the floods. However, I thought it was a little hard of the local newspaper to criticise me for not wearing Wellington boots that day. I must point out that I did not go to the Severn valley to wade through floods; I went to make sure that people were being looked after and that the proper procedures were in hand.

Mr. Luff: The newspaper has apologised handsomely.

Mr. Morley: I accept that apology with the good grace with which it was given.
We have to accept, in relation to coastal defence, that we cannot ring Britain with a concrete wall, and it would be undesirable to do so. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was right to say that that is generally recognised. The report provoked a good debate, in which many sensible points were made. It got people thinking about the question of coastal defence and about the best strategies to be adopted.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire raised three points. The first had to do with institutions and democratic input, a matter that was also raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). The Government believe that it is difficult to draw a distinction between coastal defence and inland defence, and that effective delivery depends on co-ordination.
As a Minister, I am a great supporter of local government input in such matters. I believe that there ought to be local accountability and local democracy. I accept that in some cases, as a result of decisions taken locally about funding, the full standard spending


assessment has not been passed on by local councils to regional flood defence committees. I have written to a number of councils expressing my concern, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Lewes that some of the worst offenders are councils under Liberal Democrat control. I have written also to the Local Government Association, because this is an issue for the whole country. However, it seems that local councils have been better at passing on the increased SSA this year.
In connection with funding, we have pledged an increase of £23 million over the next three years for flood and coastal defence, and we have put in place a 6.3 per cent. increase in SSAs for regional flood defence committees. In addition, following the Bye report, we have earmarked £3 million this year to improve flood warning. A number of hon. Members raised the matter of flood plains. We intend to keep the present guidance under review, and we are also introducing flood plain mapping. We have made a start on long-term policy with the implementation of the Bye report. Targets have been set, and we recognise the case made by the report for managed realignment.
No Government can enter into open-ended commitments over compensation for land loss. That process has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. We have pledged, as part of the Agenda 2000 reforms, to widen our agri-environment schemes and, through managed realignment, give some support to landowners who lose land. However, those cases would have to be dealt with on their merits.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that I have visited Canvey island, and I am glad to say that the defences there are in good shape and that we shall keep them under review. In addition, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that there is a balance to be struck between the local industry and some important environmental sites, such as the sites of special scientific

interest in the north Kent marshes. I accept that the regional development agency has a responsibility in that matter, and it will have an increasing role to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey asked about the respective roles of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have no great ideological hang-ups about which Department should have lead responsibility in a variety of matters, but the question was considered in the Select Committee report. MAFF is responsible for land use: as the bulk of the land in question is farm land, it therefore makes sense, in terms of co-ordination, for MAFF to deliver flood defence and coastal defence planning as part of an integrated land-use policy. However, there is very close co-ordination between MAFF and the DETR, and both Departments are charged to develop joint planning as part of the comprehensive spending review. By that means, we will be able to integrate some of our activities.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke about Minehead. I understand that the Environment Agency was unable to complete the beach defences within the ideal timetable, because of budgeting restraints imposed by the Somerset local flood defence committee. The level of the MAFF grant has been increased to help with beach recharge, and I hope that the matter is resolved as soon as possible. We are awaiting proposals from the Environment Agency, which we shall consider as soon as we receive them.
A number of other hon. Members made important contributions. However, time does not allow me to deal with them in this speech. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Lewes that I shall answer by letter the points that they have raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Christopher Young

Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me this debate, for which I asked following correspondence with Christopher Young's regiment and with the Ministry of Defence. I have not received satisfactory replies to my questions, or to those of Christopher's parents. I speak today with the full knowledge and agreement of Christopher's parents—his mother, Heather, and his stepfather, Terry.
On 20 June 1995, Christopher Michael Young left his parents' home in the town of Ashington in the county of Northumberland. He travelled a few miles north to the village of Acklington, where he lay on the railway track of the east coast main line. He committed suicide. He was 23.
What could have triggered such a tragic and horrific end to a fine, healthy young life? I shall try to piece together the events that led to Christopher's death. He was an active young man who enjoyed life. He decided to join the Army with the full support of his family. He joined the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars and threw himself wholeheartedly into basic training at Catterick camp. Out of the new intake, it was he who received the award as top driver—quite an achievement.
Christopher was posted to Germany, was trained on exercises in Canada, and served for six months in Cyprus. He was enthusiastic, and he hoped to progress through promotion. He matured into a confident and decent young man of whom his parents were justifiably proud.
Christopher was initially disappointed when, as a result of defence cuts, the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars was disbanded, but he transferred to the 13th/18th Light Dragoons and he quickly overcame his concerns. He made new friends, and he distinguished himself when chosen to represent his new regiment in a boxing tournament. It would appear that Christopher had chosen an interesting and rewarding career that was proving beneficial both to him and to his regiment.
Things changed dramatically in the latter stages of 1993 when Christopher was posted to Bosnia. He was on attachment to the Coldstream Guards as part of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia was his first encounter with the horrors of conflict and with the realities of death. The conflict in Bosnia inflicted much carnage on innocent men, women and children.
I cannot speak with any personal experience of war, but I went to Bosnia in summer 1997 as part of an international monitoring team to oversee the first municipal elections. I was in the town of Banja Luka, where Christopher was posted, and where he first came face to face with the horrors of so-called ethnic cleansing. I stood at the site of the most notorious atrocity, and it had a profound and harrowing effect on me, even though there were no bodies and only the charred remains of burnt-out buildings. I cannot begin to imagine the effect that a six-month tour of duty must have had on the young men who undertook it.
Christopher had particular problems in coming to terms with the deaths of young children. What a relief it was, therefore, to have home leave for Christmas at the end of such a terrible tour of duty. However, while he was

waiting for his flight home, his wallet, containing his identification, was stolen, and he was later involved in a fight with another soldier. He was subsequently arrested, and he received 28 days detention and loss of leave and pay as a punishment.
During his detention at Hohne, in Germany, Christopher asked to see Maggie Gibbons, a Women's Royal Voluntary Service volunteer attached to the Light Dragoons. From what she subsequently told Christopher's parents, it was obvious that he had a recognisable fear of returning to Bosnia. Maggie Gibbons's concern that Christopher was psychologically unfit to return to Bosnia was so great that she made strenuous representations to his commanding officer, asking that Christopher be granted a period of unscheduled leave as a respite. She felt that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Christopher was granted home leave at the conclusion of his punishment. On seeing him, his parents were shocked at the change in Christopher. He hated the Army, and he was considering applying for a discharge. They were worried by the dramatic change, in only a few months, from his being a bright, enthusiastic young man who wanted a career and promotion to being a depressed shadow of his former self who wanted only to get out of the Army. Christopher was given an order granting an appointment with his commanding officer, and he informed his parents that if he was successful in seeking a discharge, it would be complete by August 1994.
It is important to note that part of Christopher's punishment was the loss of 28 days' pay. However, he received no pay for four months, forcing him to borrow heavily from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute and a German bank. That was three months of extra punishment. The Army conceded that a mistake had been made, and Christopher was eventually paid for the three months. However, more pressure had been applied to someone no longer capable of handling it.
Christopher returned home to his parents in July 1994. Nothing then or in the following months suggested to his parents that there was anything irregular in the way he had left the Army. In fact, he was absent without leave, having left his regiment without authority and having failed to report to Bovington camp for final clearance and documentation.
As far as his parents were concerned, Christopher had left the Army without a problem. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he was living in the family home. He registered with the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, giving his parents' address as his own. His driving licence, car registration and medical records were registered to that address.
It came as a complete surprise to Christopher's stepfather—then, and now, a police officer in Northumbria—to discover that Ashington police had received a fax from the Royal Military Police, Chichester, on Monday 19 June 1995. The fax listed Christopher as absent without leave from the Army since 2 August 1994—a period of nearly 11 months.
That evening, once Christopher had become aware of the police inquiry and a warrant for his arrest, he confessed to his mother that he was absent from the Army without leave, and that he owed money. He gave no other details, but told his mother that he feared that he would do serious Army time—at least a day for a day, and perhaps more. He was adamant that he would not return


to his unit in Germany, as he believed that he would be sent back to Bosnia. He told his mother that he would rather be dead than go back to the Army.
Christopher was calm when he left, explaining that he wanted time to himself to think things through. That was that last time anyone saw him alive.
I have presented what I hope are the undisputed facts of the case. I want to show now how the Army, in its responses to the tragedy, failed in its duty of care to Christopher Young. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will outline the Army's case more eloquently than I can, but I shall try to paraphrase it.
Christopher was sentenced to 28 days' detention and loss of pay and leave. At no time did he complain of post-traumatic stress disorder. Nor did he ask to see a medical officer or a psychiatrist. The Army concedes that Maggie Gibbons spoke on behalf of a number of soldiers, of whom Christopher was one. However, the Army claims that Maggie was not qualified to spot post-traumatic disorder, and that leave was granted out of kindness, not concern for Christopher's health.
Christopher lost a further three months wages. The Army admits that, but claims that it had no effect on Christopher as the money was later paid to him in full. The Army states that he left Hohne on 11 July 1994, prior to intended discharge procedures. He was ordered to report to Bovington on 1 August 1994 so that he could complete his documentation before being discharged. He failed to do so.
Between 2 August and 15 December 1994, Bovington made frequent attempts to contact Christopher, but to no avail. On 15 December, Bovington asked his regiment for help. On 7 January 1995, the regiment asked a friend of Christopher's, who had been discharged in summer 1994, to tell Christopher to report to Bovington. The message apparently reached Christopher, but he failed to report.
The Army claims that no action would have been taken against Christopher when he reported. Indeed, he would have been asked only to hand in his identification card and to collect his credit for pay.
A board was convened on 30 January 1995 to record the events, and responsibility for locating Christopher passed back to Bovington and, ultimately, to the records office. I have taken those facts from a letter sent to Mr. Haley from Lieutenant-Colonel Webb-Bowen, commanding officer of the Light Dragoons. The officer also sent his sincere condolences.
On the face of it, the Army's reply might seem reasonable. However, let us examine the case more closely. I submit that Christopher began to show signs of psychological problems when he asked specifically to see Maggie Gibbons while in detention. She spoke to Christopher's parents after his death and explained that he had had serious problems coping with his experiences in Bosnia. She also spoke to his commanding officer and argued successfully for a period of unscheduled leave because of Christopher's state of mind. That was Christopher's first cry for help.
It beggars belief that the Army could bestow an act of kindness on such an undeserving individual who was serving 28 days for a serious breach of discipline. In my view—which is supported by the WRVS volunteer—that leave was granted because of Christopher's mental state,

and for no other reason. How could the Army maintain discipline if it were the norm to allocate unscheduled leave as an act of kindness after a period of detention?
The important role that Maggie Gibbons played in this tragic case cannot be overstated. That was not the first time that she had met Christopher—indeed, she knew him quite well. She sent photographs of him taken before he went to Bosnia and stated that he was one of her "best boys". It therefore seems logical that Christopher would contact her as someone whom he could both confide in and trust to explain his fears and concerns. If leave was granted because of Christopher's mental state, his regiment failed to follow up the problem. How many other soldiers from Christopher's regiment were shown similar acts of kindness, in the form of unscheduled leave, after serving sentences for a serious breach of regulations?
The question of Christopher's pay is another important issue. The family have never disputed that it was eventually paid in full. The point is that Christopher borrowed heavily during that period, creating additional pressures at a time when he basically wanted to be away from it all. It could explain why Christopher felt that he could not complete his clearances and left a full two weeks before he was granted permission to do so.
Christopher left Hohne on 11 July and his papers gave him permission to leave on 25 July. How could he be deemed to be in "good order", as his commanding officer stated, when he left two weeks before the date shown on his discharge papers? It states quite clearly in his orders that failure to comply would result in disciplinary action. By leaving Hohne without permission, Christopher was surely absent without leave from 11 July. I submit that leaving in that way was Christopher's second cry for help.
That brings me to a significant area of contention with the official version of events. We know that Christopher was officially reported absent without leave with effect from 2 August 1994 even though he was absent from 11 July. It is stated that the usual procedures would have been put into operation—namely, that a signal would have been sent to central criminal records and information. The Chichester Royal Military Police would then have contacted the civil police authorities, who would have visited the address given and, if unsuccessful, would have maintained the details on file.
It is stated that visits were made to addresses in the Ashington area. Why were there no visits to Christopher's parents' home address? The address is on file twice under the headings "Family details" and "Next of kin". The same address was shown on Christopher's discharge papers that ordered him there before going to Bovington. What addresses were visited, when and by whom? If contact had been made with the local civil police, a locate trace or wanted marker would have been placed on the police computer. I remind the House at this important juncture that Christopher's stepfather is a serving officer in the Northumbria police force and was stationed at that time in Ashington. Why did it take 11 months to find Christopher?
Frequent inquiries were allegedly made to two addresses in Ashington, the last of which was on 15 December 1994. The Army then claims that it used standard procedures—namely, it contacted the Department of Social Security for the current addresses of any absentees. Christopher registered with the DSS immediately upon returning home 11 months earlier. While in his car, he was stopped twice


by the police during that period and asked to produce his documents at the police station. There was no "wanted" or "locate and trace" marker against his name. It took 11 months to find someone who was not hiding. Even though Christopher's parents moved into Ashington during that time, their change of address would have been easy to trace.
That brings me to the final point: Christopher would not have been punished for being absent without leave, and the Army wanted him only to hand back his identification and collect his pay. I have mentioned this point to several ex-service men of various ranks, all of whom said that 11 months absence without leave for whatever reason would have incurred severe penalties. Perhaps the regiment could provide details of the number of those who fall into the category of committing no offence for being absent without leave. The Army claims that there was to be no punishment for Christopher, who simply had to hand back his ID and collect his pay.
Christopher's ID was stolen, along with his wallet, on return from Bosnia and he was subsequently issued with a temporary ID, which expired on 16 July 1994. He had no ID, and the Army should have known that. As to his pay, a sum was deducted from his estate apparently for overpayment of wages in Germany. There was no pay to collect and he had no ID. Why did the Army send a "locate and detain" order to the local police—that is, an order to arrest him—if Christopher was not to be punished? Christopher obviously did not believe that he would not be punished, for there was no third cry for help. He believed that he would not receive any help and took his own life rather than face returning to the Army.
I believe that the Army has shown either incompetence or negligence in this case. As a result, a young man took his own life rather than return to the Army. How different might things have been if Christopher had been located within weeks rather than 11 months? I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to answer all the points that I have raised in the short time that he has to respond to the debate. However, I formally request that he meet Christopher's parents with a view to conducting an open, Government-led inquiry into the events surrounding Christopher's death. The family have only ever sought answers to their questions. Nothing will bring Christopher back, and they must live with that for the rest of their lives. An inquiry may prevent a similar incident in the future.
We train and equip the finest service men and women in the world and we expect them to police the world's trouble spots in the name of this nation. Thousands of service personnel are awaiting instructions to move into Kosovo and, of those thousands, a number will undoubtedly end up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We have a duty to ensure that systems are in place to recognise that disorder and to deal with it professionally and sympathetically.
The Army has been described as a family—sadly, for some who join, it is their only family. Central to that family principle is surely a duty of care. I believe that the Army failed in that duty of care in Christopher's case. I ask the Minister to meet Christopher's parents and to hold an inquiry so that everyone connected with the case may find peace and we may ensure that such an incident as this never occurs again.

Dr. David Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on his eloquent, and sometimes moving, contribution. He clearly made a strong case regarding the tragic circumstances that affected his constituent. As I listened to my hon. Friend, I recalled that I might have met Christopher—I do not know whether I did. I spent some time with the Coldstream Guards and a detachment from the Light Dragoons in Bosnia during the period under discussion and I remember joking with the service men—who were full of life—about whether they supported Sunderland or Newcastle. Most of them were Newcastle supporters.
I am reminded of the rather delicate position in which the Army often finds itself. As my hon. Friend said, our armed forces comprise some of the finest young men and women in the world, who demonstrate their proficiency when we increasingly ask them to serve in places such as the Balkans. That puts great pressure on young people. At one level, they are very macho; at another, when they see the horrors of ethnic cleansing, it much affects them. That means that the Army must change and ensure that it has procedures to recognise cries for help of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck showed that Christopher Young often made.
We must ensure that such events do not happen again. I am conscious of this because I have a similar case involving a young man from my constituency, Trooper Alex Jobling. He was from the same regiment, the Light Dragoons, and was at the same base, Hohne in Germany. Tragically, he committed suicide on 21 January 1997. I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and had a long and sympathetic reply. However, I am not completely satisfied with it. I return to the approach made to me by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Jobling, who complained that they have been exasperated
by trying to get to the truth surrounding the circumstances of our son's death.
This House and the Army must ensure that every effort is made to satisfy parents and relatives of people who die that at least they know all the circumstances. In this case, I do not think that all the circumstances are known. I have taken up the case because no action was taken even though a suicide note was found and reported to the corporal a few days before Trooper Jobling committed suicide. I do not blame the corporal; my point is that there must be clear instructions to the Army to ensure that the aide-memoire that has now been produced is adhered to and, crucially, gets through to non-commissioned officers. Our NCOs are the best in the world and the backbone of the British Army. They are the link between troopers and people who might be able to help them.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree to help my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck with the circumstances of the death of Christopher Young. I hope that he is also prepared to discuss with me the events involving Trooper Jobling because they are tragic and reflect a common point. I would be grateful if he agreed to my request.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): First, I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that I will ask the


Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) to re-examine the circumstances surrounding the case that he raised, to examine the correspondence and to tell my right hon. Friend whether a meeting might help clarify the situation.
In the short time available, however, I want to address the main question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I am grateful to him for raising the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trooper Christopher Young, which he did clearly and with great sympathy. I also take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to his family on their sad loss. Mr. and Mrs. Haley have understandably thought much about the circumstances surrounding his death. It is right that they should receive detailed explanation of all the events relating to the situation. I will ensure that that happens in the most appropriate way.
Christopher Young was highly regarded by his superiors and well liked by his peers. He was a hard-working, efficient and capable young person who had been recommended for possible promotion to become a junior non-commissioned officer. He was a fit and active member of the troop and boxed for the squadron. I am advised that it was the view of the Army that he had a promising career ahead of him. Sadly, after three years of service, he decided to leave the Army and applied to be discharged. The discharge was to become effective on 2 August 1994. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck told us of the sad events that took place between then and a year later.
The Army takes very seriously its responsibilities for duty of care. In the six months that I have been in this post, I have visited many regiments. On each occasion, I have been impressed by the seriousness with which the Army accepts that responsibility. That is recognised by all in the Army—by those who lead and by those who serve. Apart from anything else raised by my hon. Friend, that would be an important reason why I would feel that we

have a full obligation to investigate the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Christopher Young.
I do not accept that there has been a failure in this case on the part of the Army. I know that there would have been no intentional failure, but several specific points have been raised and it is right that I further examine the circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said that when Christopher Young was in detention, he approached Maggie Gibbons of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and explained to her how he felt about his circumstances. She in turn had a discussion with Christopher's parents in which she expressed how she interpreted what he had told her. I undertake to revisit the issue and check with the commanding officer what advice, if any, was given him by Maggie Gibbons in respect of her assessment of Christopher's physical and mental state of health.
The Army's responsibilities in such cases were raised. The Army has a clear responsibility to retrieve documents, to settle possible outstanding wages and to ensure that proper procedures have been followed in any discharge. In emphasising that responsibility, I again undertake to examine some questions linked to it. I will check which address the military police initially contacted to try to locate Christopher Young in trying to meet the Army's responsibilities. I will check whether any other addresses were approached by the military police and, if so, what response was received. I will also check whether, after the initial attempt to locate Christopher Young, a "locate and trace" order was made by the military police; and if so, when it was issued and why the military police felt it was necessary. Finally, I will check what action the civil police took in the case and when they took it.
We have a duty to explain all the circumstances to the family of Christopher Young. I recognise that it is important in that explanation to make the most direct contact possible, and I undertake to do that.

West Country Ambulance Service

1 pm

Mr. Colin Breed: I am sure that the Minister shares the view that time seems to stand still for people who dial 999 and ask for the ambulance service. Every second seems to be a minute, and every minute an hour, until they hear the siren and see the blue flashing light—a heart-stopping moment in the rear-view mirror for most of us. For those who have picked up the telephone, the ambulance's arrival is a moment of comfort, security and help. The time between their telephone call and the ambulance's arrival is critical.
I shall describe three short scenarios. Let us think of a pregnant woman in north Cornwall who goes into labour early at 2 am. Very distressed, she phones for an ambulance to take her the 50 miles to hospital. Let us think of a young cyclist, who has been knocked off his bicycle in a road traffic accident in the middle of Somerset, and is lying unconscious in the road while somebody grabs a mobile phone to call an ambulance to take the boy to hospital. Or let us think of members of an ambulance team who are suddenly called to a major incident at the end of a long shift. They arrive at the scene, attend the victim and take him to hospital. The hospital, which has received enormous investment in recent times, has all the high-technology equipment and the most wonderful intensive care facilities, and trained staff are ready, willing and able, but the ambulance, which has done 300,000 miles, arrives five minutes too late. Those are not isolated incidents; such events happen.
The West Country Ambulance Services trust is one of the largest ambulance services in the country. It serves the counties of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, covering approximately 5,700 sq m of a predominantly rural area. Last year, it was one of only four trusts to fail to meet the national targets set by the Government. It managed to reach 90.4 per cent. of emergency calls within 19 minutes—well under the target of 95 per cent. It responded to 42.9 per cent. of calls within eight minutes—substantially under the expected 50 per cent.
In April last year, new standards were introduced for some ambulance services, moving away from the old Orcon standard, which specified the 95 per cent. and 50 per cent. targets, to a criteria-based dispatch. For the West Country Ambulance Services trust, that means that it must respond to 75 per cent. of immediately life-threatening illnesses within eight minutes, and 95 per cent. of all other cases within 19 minutes. Other emergency services can be used to respond to calls, although the cost of training and of ensuring that such response vehicles are properly equipped will inevitably cut into the ambulance service budget, and, therefore, not help it to try to achieve the targets.
Over the past four years, the performance of West Country Ambulance Services has become progressively worse. That is not a result of the trust's inefficiency. Nor does it indicate that the service is lacking dedicated, hard-working staff. It reflects the fact that the ambulance service does not have sufficient funding to meet the Government's targets.
Between 1993 and 1998, there was a 35 per cent. increase in emergency calls resulting in a response. That is higher than the national average of 31 per cent. Figures show that the West Country Ambulance Services trust's

performance standards are dropping. The ambulance service is being asked to cope with ever-increasing demand, while under constant pressure to find cost savings. The ambulance service is the front-line emergency service, and we simply cannot allow standards to drop any further.
One of the fundamental problems for all health services in the south-west is that the overall funding formula does not reflect the real cost differences associated with the sparsity of the area. The funding formula provides for an allowance of 0.5 per cent. of available funding to be allocated on the basis of population sparsity, but such weighting in no way reflects the actual cost of providing services.
Call-out times are inevitably longer, and the cost of providing ambulance cover to scattered hamlets is obviously much higher than in a densely populated urban area. In addition, the south-west experiences an influx of tourists each year, resulting in a massive increase in population. The allowance in the funding formula does not take into account the fact that the daytime population in Devon and Cornwall doubles in the summer months.
We acknowledge that the emergency ambulance cost adjustment includes a small sparsity allocation. However, figures from the House of Commons Library show that, for most west country health authorities, the EACA rises slightly as a result of the sparsity adjustment, but is pushed down by the supposed low proportion of emergency journeys. That is surprising in the light of the fact that the increase in emergency calls to which I referred results in a higher than national average response in the west country. West Country Ambulance Services predicts a shortfall in its funding next year of £700,000.

Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to reconcile 3 per cent. so-called efficiency savings with the additional burden of a 6 per cent. rise in call-outs?

Mr. Breed: That is absolutely correct. The service is expected to find 3 per cent. so-called efficiency savings, although one must consider extra burdens such as millennium compliance costs, which have fallen squarely on the authority. Staff pay accounts for 80 per cent. of trust costs. The trust is overspent on pay budgets, and therefore any deficit will have to be met from within such budgets. In order to keep within them, additional staff will not be called in when, for instance, someone is off sick. Instead, spare crew members will have to be allocated to other vehicles. That may mean that, at times, vehicles are without crews. The trust has also been forced to drop planned shift cover in order to curb overspend.
Last year, a target was set of reducing shift cover by 40 hours in each of the 11 station officer's areas. In order to eliminate overspend completely, the ambulance service would need to reduce shift cover by a further one fifth. Although reducing shift cover is the quickest way in which to compensate for the overspend, other initiatives may have to be implemented, such as a vacancy freeze, a freeze on non-clinical training and, very worryingly, slippage of some clinical training into the next financial year. None of those measures will enhance response times. Recent NHS pay awards and the implementation of the working time directive also concern the ambulance trust.
I acknowledge that the Government have allocated £100 million as part of the modernisation programme, but trust estimates show that that will account for only 0.6 per cent. of the additional funding required. For Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, every 1 per cent. above the 2 per cent. inflation funding represents £41,000. That is the equivalent of one operational crew working for 40 hours a week.
Clearly, such cost-cutting exercises will not help the already overstretched service to try to meet national targets. The south-west yet again loses out under targets that are set for the entire population of the country. Targets for Cornwall have been reduced to 87 per cent.—8 per cent. lower than the national average. Just why the people of Cornwall are expected to accept lower standards has never been fully explained.
I am sure that everyone will agree that the ambulance service has a basic need for a reliable vehicle fleet. Ambulance staff already feel that the fleet is far from satisfactory. As I said earlier, some vehicles have almost 300,000 miles on the clock. Many old vehicles with such high mileage are still in frequent use. As the vehicles get older, they will inevitably be less reliable. This year, the ambulance service will need to replace 41 vehicles if its fleet is to be made up of vehicles under seven years old, but it can afford to replace only nine of them. No doubt the service will not forget that it had to replace vehicles in the not-too-distant past because their wheels were coming off.
The service must also meet the cost of warranties and maintenance for newer vehicles. According to UNISON, to which I am extremely grateful for providing information, a significant number of newer vehicles in the fleet will soon be outside their warranty period. That will mean that additional costs for repairs to those vehicles will fall on the trust rather than the supplier.
The effect of draft proposals by the committee for European normalisation—something that, I confess, I had not fully understood until recently—to standardise ambulances will also place disproportionate cost pressures on the west country ambulance service. The new regulations will involve phasing out the old two-stretcher ambulances and will effectively make it necessary to dispatch two vehicles to an incident where there are likely to be two casualties. Vehicles will, therefore, have to travel more frequently, which not only increases mileage, but reduces cover. It is important to remember that fuel consumption, which is a major cost and a great concern to the ambulance service, will rise considerably if the proposals are accepted and additional vehicles must attend incidents.
The proposals will also have a great impact on the St. John's Ambulance Brigade—the voluntary charity to which I am sure we all want to pay tribute—which supplements the ambulance service on an enormous scale. The charity purchases its vehicles, which are usually second-hand, from the ambulance trust. It is considering whether it will be able to continue to do so under the new regulations, and that is causing concern.
The plain fact is that the west country ambulance service does not have sufficient resources to meet national targets. The public have a right to expect ambulance staff to arrive on the scene of an incident as quickly as possible. The scenarios that I outlined earlier are true cases and are not isolated incidents. There is no cheap fix. If the

ambulance service is to be able to provide professional care and meet the targets specified by the Government, it must be able to afford the appropriate vehicles and provide the adequate level of staff and training.
The Minister ought to agree that, at the moment, the west country is losing out in many respects simply because the funding formula does not reflect the increased costs involved in providing that essential front-line emergency service for people living in rural areas. Our ambulance service is expected to bear those costs year in and year out for millions of tourists and the local population.
Finally, I want to remind the Minister of a fact of which I am sure he is aware, but which is often forgotten. The people of the west country fund, by voluntary contributions, two air ambulances. Week in and week out, people dedicate themselves to raising the money to keep those air ambulances going. People in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset put their hand in their pocket because they believe that it is a vital service, but people in Scotland and London benefit from air ambulances funded by the Government. That fact alone ought to mean that the Government should at least ensure that land ambulances receive all the necessary funding.
It is time for the Government to recognise that the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust is severely underfunded. It cannot bear any more so-called efficiency cuts. Targets will not be met if there is a reduction in the resources available. The dedicated staff are struggling to meet the Government's targets with inadequate resources. I hope that the Minister will accept his responsibility and consider providing a fair formula to deal with that worrying situation.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for SouthEast Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this debate on a subject of such importance to his constituents and those of other hon. Members from the south-west who are present.
The Government have made it clear that high-quality care should be at the heart of the national health service. That applies to ambulance services, which provide the public and patients with round-the-clock emergency care and access to the full range of clinical services. Ambulance services are at the forefront of the modernisation programme set out in the White Paper, "The New NHS", which involves embracing new technologies to support better and faster patient care and playing an important part in the development of NHS Direct.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the inability of the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust to meet the national standards for ambulance response times. That is a serious concern, and the local health authorities and the trust must work together to ensure that national standards are met.
I recognise the hard work and contribution of all the staff of the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust who last year responded to nearly 90,000 emergency calls within the 19-minute target—more than ever before. In the past few years, the trust has experienced a steady rise in the number of 999 calls made to the service. Since 1993–94, the number of emergency calls has risen by over 44 per cent. to more than 105,800 last year.
Two initiatives are likely to have a major impact on the ability of the trust to deliver improved response times: criteria-based dispatch, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and NHS Direct. Last April, the trust introduced criteria-based dispatch, which is a method of prioritising all 999 calls into three categories: category A consists of calls about situations that are immediately life-threatening, category B calls relate to serious situations and category C calls relate to situations that are not life-threatening or serious.
By 2000–01, all ambulance trusts should have introduced call prioritisation systems and are expected to meet an interim new standard of responding to 75 per cent. of all category A calls within eight minutes. Category B and C calls should continue to be responded to within 19 minutes. Criteria-based dispatch is, therefore, an attempt to answer emergency 999 calls according to the seriousness of the patient's illness and not, as in the past, according to where they live.
I emphasise that category C calls are still included with category B calls in having to be answered within 19 minutes. Those calls make up about a quarter of the total emergency calls and the Department of Health recognises that the practice of responding to them in exactly the same way as to life-threatening emergencies needs to be carefully evaluated to ensure that valuable NHS resources are best deployed in providing first-class emergency care.
Ambulance services have been lobbying in the past couple of years to be released from the convention that every 999 call requires a fully crewed and equipped ambulance. They say that if they were freed from that obligation, they could concentrate on response times to the more serious emergencies.
Work by Sheffield university and the experience of ambulance services over the past two years with 999 call prioritisation shows that it is safe and reliable, and that there may be a case for considering different approaches to minor 999 or category C calls. However, the Secretary of State stated clearly at AMBEX 98 that before there was any change to the current system of sending an ambulance to all 999 calls, there was a need for careful piloting of alternative responses to category C calls.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister recognise that apart from the response time for an ambulance to arrive at the scene of an incident, a further problem in the west country is the distance to accident and emergency units, which are widely dispersed in rural areas such as the south-west? It takes a long time for an ambulance to get to a hospital, so there is a double bind for the patient.

Mr. Denham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said. What he says is a fact of geography. I was setting out the measures that are or could be in hand to enable the ambulance service to deploy its resources most effectively to the patients in most urgent need.
The NHS executive intends to issue a health services circular in March outlining our approach to category C pilots in more detail. The circular will require ambulance services to register all category C pilots with the

executive. It will also stress the need for careful evaluation of the pilots before any decision is taken to change the current system, which enjoys huge public confidence.
Early indications are that many of the pilots will include linking appropriate category C calls into NHS Direct, which seems sensible. Any request from the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust to register a category C pilot will be considered carefully by the NHS executive. Before such schemes are introduced, health authorities and the ambulance service will be advised to have locally agreed procedures and standards in place for dealing with minor emergencies. The pilots, as well as those procedures and standards, would need to be supported by the professions, take account of local concerns in the community and be properly explained to the public.
The second initiative that will have an effect on ambulance response times is that from April this year, the ambulance trust, in co-operation with local NHS trusts and general practitioner co-operatives, will be providing NHS Direct across the four health authorities in the south-west. NHS Direct is a major element in our efforts to use new technology and better information systems to provide faster care more conveniently. By the millennium, NHS Direct will cover up to 60 per cent. of the population in England.
Evidence from our pilots so far is that there is a great potential for the new service to assist in the handling of category C calls. It is also likely to help to avoid the clogging up of the 999 system, lessen the growing work load of GPs and reduce pressures on hard-working accident and emergency departments. If that potential is realised, it will enable the ambulance trust to concentrate on the more serious calls and thus improve response times.
It will be a challenge for the trust to achieve the new ambulance response standard, which requires that from 2000–01, 75 per cent. of category A—life-threatening—999 calls must be responded to within eight minutes. The trust has commissioned an independent review of the service from Operational Research in Health, in agreement with health authorities in Devon and Somerset. The report will review the current use of resources and establish the base line for achieving the new performance targets by 2000–01. It will then be for health authorities to develop plans to meet the targets and to ensure that the new standards for ambulance response times are met.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall called for additional Government funding for the health authorities in the west country. He said that he believed that the process whereby money is allocated to individual health authorities does not take into account the cost of providing health services in a rural area, particularly given the geography of the south-west peninsula.
I shall, therefore, say a few words about the way in which health authority money is allocated. I remind the House that the background to this is the investment in the health service of £21 billion over the comprehensive spending review period—a sum substantially greater than that envisaged by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Andrew George: rose—

Mr. Denham: I will aim to give way if time allows, but first I must respond to a number of points.
The Department of Health uses a national weighted capitation formula as the basis for allocating hospital and community health services revenue to individual health authorities. The underlying principle of the formula is to distribute resources as equitably as possible, based on the health care needs of the residents of the various health authority areas.
Weighted capitation targets are not fixed in time, but are recalculated annually to determine each health authority's relative share of the overall resources that we make available to the NHS. Changes to the targets of individual health authorities are usually the result of routine updating to take advantage of the latest available data, such as population figures or boundary changes.
The weighted capitation formula has been reviewed. Last year we made four changes to it. The one most relevant to this debate was the introduction of a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services. That arose from an exercise to examine the effects of rural sparsity on the cost of providing certain services. Although a geographical cost difference was found for emergency ambulance services, no such difference was found in the cost of providing accident and emergency services in hospitals or patient transport services.
The resource allocation group recommended that we introduce an adjustment to reflect the costs of emergency ambulance services, which we have done. The new advisory committee on resource allocation has agreed that issues of rurality and cost should be part of its longer-term work programme.
The target figures that have come out of the formula are intended to provide a fair and equitable share of NHS resources for each health authority. It is important to point out that each of the health authorities that commissions ambulance services from the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust currently receives more than its target allocation.
In 1999–2000, the hon. Gentleman's health authority, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, will receive nearly £6.5 million more than the formula would indicate is its fair share of NHS funding. Other health authorities in the region are in a similar position—North and East Devon will receive £5.4 million more than its target, Somerset more than £2.9 million, and South and West Devon an extra £7 million.
I am aware that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly health authority, where the problems in achieving the response times are most marked, is faced with particular financial difficulties, and it will develop a financial strategy that addresses its deficit. To assist the health authority during the transitional period, I recently announced a £2 million grant for the coming year from the special assistance fund to that health authority.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of his concerns about a possible European Union directive requiring a change from two-stretcher ambulances to single-stretcher

vehicles. I believe that his worries have arisen out of the work being undertaken by the European committee for standardisation, which is trying to put in place standards that are similar across the European Union, to enable fairer competition. Hon. Members will be reassured to learn that no EU directive on ambulance specifications such as the hon. Gentleman describes has been signed. Hon. Members will also be pleased to hear that the current proposals on standards being examined by the committee relate to the space requirements in emergency ambulances and will allow two-stretcher ambulances to continue to be used.
There are sound clinical reasons why some ambulance trusts in England may want to consider the adoption of single-stretcher ambulances. For example, a single paramedic might find it difficult to treat two seriously injured patients adequately at the same time. Any decision to move to the use of single-stretcher vehicles will be for individual ambulance trusts to take in the light of best clinical advice.
I have been assured that if introduced, the changes being discussed will relate only to new vehicles. There will, therefore, be no need to renew entire ambulance fleets as a result of any forthcoming directive. I am also assured that old ambulances can continue to operate until the end of their operational life, so they could be sold on to organisations such as St. John Ambulance.
If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is still interested, I shall give way to him now.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister. With reference to his remarks about screening emergency calls to the service, the problem in my constituency is lack of hardware, particularly for night cover. Will he comment on the number of ambulances available in rural areas, especially overnight, and the difficulty of meeting emergency response times? The target times could not be met without the support of the voluntary sector, especially the air ambulances.

Mr. Denham: That brings us back to a central point in the debate. There is a responsibility on the trust to work with the health authorities to achieve the necessary response times. Block capital is allocated to all NHS trusts according to a set formula. The West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust receives its allocations in the same way as all other ambulance trusts. The trust bought 17 new vehicles in 1998, plans to purchase nine in the coming year and hopes to purchase 14 new vehicles in 2000.
I remind hon. Members that the Government have provided real-terms increases in funding to all health authorities in the south-west for the coming year. It is the responsibility of the health authorities and the ambulance services trust to work together to ensure that the trust can improve response times and provide better care for patients.

Health Care Assistants

Helen Jones: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the role of health care assistants in the national health service. I do so confident in the knowledge that the Government are committed to the modernisation of our health service and to making it once again the best in the world.
Part of that modernisation is our commitment to supporting and valuing our staff. In that context, we hear much about doctors and nurses, and rightly so, because no one underestimates their dedication and skill. However, other members of staff are also an important part of the health care team; without them our national health service could not function. Those include the category known as health care assistants or, in some trusts, support workers.
The confusion of names is in itself significant. Over the years, we have failed to value the skills and input of those workers and to provide a clear definition of their roles and career path. Some trusts call them health care assistants, whatever their role. Others distinguish between health care assistants and nursing assistants. Some trusts have incorporated the old nursing auxiliary grades into their health care assistants' schemes, while others have yet to make progress on that.
Even more confusingly, some trusts have a health care assistant grade, but still designate some of the staff within that grade as nursing auxiliaries. We do not know exactly how far that integration has gone. In a parliamentary answer to me on 9 February about the number of trusts that have incorporated nursing auxiliaries into their health care assistant grades, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
No figures are kept centrally."—[Official Report, 9 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 168.]
That is confusing enough, but the position becomes even more bizarre when we look at the different pay scales on offer and the often confusing employment contract status of many of those staff. A survey done for Health Service Report a couple of years ago showed wide variations between trusts, and the position has altered little since then. Some trusts have three grades for their health care assistants; some have only two; and some use a single grade to cover a range of roles from housekeeping duties to direct patient care. Some have training grades while others do not. In some trusts, paid progression depends entirely on the length of service, whereas in others it is linked to performance factors. Indeed, it is possible to have staff doing exactly the same job on different rates of pay within the same trust because some staff retain the old Whitley Council contracts while others are on locally negotiated contracts.
That is profoundly damaging to the teamwork that we want to support and encourage within the health service and, ultimately, it is also detrimental to patient care. The problem goes back a number of years: when the grade was introduced, no proper assessment was made of the skills on offer or the way to enhance and use those skills. We did not set down proper qualification levels for the differing roles that health care assistants can perform, or the roles that should be subject to direct nursing supervision.
Although I say "we", this Government were not in power then, and the problems have been inherent from the beginning. That grade of health care worker began to be

introduced along with the changes in nurse education in Project 2000 and, as the role of student nurses on the wards diminished, the then Conservative Government promoted the use of that new grade, which they later called health care assistant. However, from the start there was no consensus on how the job should be defined. The nursing "professionalisers", if I may call them that without wishing to be derogatory, wanted the role to be strictly defined and clearly differentiated from nursing.
In their National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the previous Government explicitly linked the introduction of health care assistants with the freedom for trusts to set pay locally. They then encouraged the use of that grade through a series of initiatives on re-profiling and skill mix, but without a national agreement on the qualifications that should be attached to the different roles or the proper skill mix that should be used in hospitals. As a result, there is a wide variation between different trusts. Job titles are interchanged and the boundaries of the different roles are becoming increasingly blurred. We do not even know for sure how many health care assistants there are. The Department of Health's statistical bulletins distinguish between health care assistants and support workers on the ground that the latter work mainly in the hotel and property areas. It is almost impossible to maintain that distinction in practice.
The Health Service Report survey to which I referred earlier looked at the roles undertaken by health care assistants in different trusts and found that they varied widely. They range from direct patient care to technical support in radiography and phlebotomy to clerical duties and housekeeping duties on hospital wards. Anecdotal evidence from health care assistants themselves, and a survey done by the public sector union, Unison, shows that that is still the case. The majority of respondents to that survey said that their work involved aspects of patient care and that substantial minorities were engaged in a wide range of other duties such as taking blood, plastering, assisting new mothers with breast feeding—the list could go on endlessly.
The job descriptions that the trusts gave Health Service Report on that occasion are revealing because they show that the role has not been clearly defined. For example, Bolton hospital NHS trust defined the role of an HCA grade 1 as being a
combination of direct patient care, technical, clerical and housekeeping duties".
It did not help that it then went on to define the role of an HCA grade 2 in exactly the same way. Warrington hospital NHS trust, which is my local hospital, said that the work of what it calls a support carer 1 was "basic carer duties" and the role of a support carer 2 was "extended carer duties". That is as clear as mud to me and, I assume, to everybody else. In practice, it means that workers are switched between different roles, depending on staffing on the wards at any particular time.
There are even wide variations in the number of health care assistants employed by different trusts. I discovered from a parliamentary answer to me on 7 May last year that 13.3 per cent. of the work force of my local hospital—I know that it is concerned about this—are classified as health care assistants, whereas only 9.3 per cent. of the work force of Wirral hospital NHS trust, which is not far away, is so classified. That means either that we are getting the figures wrong or that there is no consensus


about the role that those workers should perform or the proper skill mix on hospital wards. It cannot be that one hospital simply needs many more cleaners and housekeeping staff than another.
It is time that we put an end to that confusion and looked clearly at the skills and competencies needed for health care assistants to perform their different roles. The previous Government said that that would be done through national vocational qualifications, but we do not know how far that system has been put into practice. When I asked, the Department of Health told me, as it frequently does, that that information was not available centrally.
Health care assistants themselves report wide variations in training practices. They often feel that the qualifications that they gain are not given the recognition that they deserve.
It would be folly to allow that situation to continue, because those staff have a great deal to contribute to our health service. Many of them are mature women with considerable caring experience to offer us, but if we want a modern and committed NHS work force, we must allow all staff to acquire the skills that they need and to benefit from a sensible pay and career structure.
I hope that I have shown through my remarks that those people are often front-line staff who have a great deal of contact with patients. It is vital that people who are ill and in hospital receive good nursing and medical care, but equally important to patients are the people who keep them clean and comfortable, who help them to eat if they are too weak to do so by themselves and who will even sit and chat and share a joke for a while. Those roles are often and increasingly performed by health care assistants, as well as by nurses, and it is time that we put their job on a proper footing.
We should move forward to arrive at a national framework of pay and employment, after consultation with all the various interested parties. I realise that that cannot be done quickly, but we should be moving in that direction. We should set down clearly the qualifications and the competencies needed for the different roles that health care assistants perform. It simply cannot be right that someone can move from cleaning the ward one minute to direct patient care the next, without us specifying the skills or the qualifications that they have to have to do that. That is not in the interests of patients and is not tenable.
We also must have clarity on training. We should move to a national system linked to NVQs and move away from the system of in-house competencies, which some trusts have been using. That system disadvantages staff and is not fair to patients. Staff have the right to equal treatment, wherever they work in the NHS, and patients have a right to expect the same standard of care, wherever they are being treated.
I am pleased, too, that the Government have introduced proposals to allow health care assistants to train as nurses without any loss of pay. I hope that we will expand that system, because many of those people, most of whom are women, have valuable skills to offer. Many of them could not train as nurses when they were younger for various reasons—often because of family responsibilities. I hope that we will value them and allow them to move forward, but if we are to achieve that we must underpin it with sensible career progression through the various grades of health care assistant grade 2.
I want to discuss the question of supervision and regulation. I hope that I have shown that many health care workers switch roles and are often involved in patient care. We need to set clear skill levels and qualifications for those roles and we also need to look carefully at which of those tasks ought to be supervised by qualified nurses and which ought not. Although it is often reported, it is unfair to leave staff working on the ward unsupervised when there are not enough staff on duty—or when the ward is pushed—and then move them back to other duties, and tell them that they cannot work unsupervised, when there are plenty of staff available. That is unfair to staff and to patients.
I strongly believe that we must have some form of regulation. I was pleased that the JM Consulting report on the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors mentioned health care assistants. No one wants to introduce a system that is too bureaucratic, but it cannot be right to leave vulnerable people in hospital when there are not proper checks on the staff who are dealing with them. Nor can it be right that, in extreme cases, someone can be struck off the nursing register, but can get a job as a health care assistant dealing with vulnerable people.
We need action to be taken for the benefit of staff and of patients. The previous Government tried to run the NHS on the cheap. They created a dog's breakfast of a system, which was in no one's interest. That system exploits low-paid staff and does not protect patients properly. I do not envy Health Ministers, who have to sort that situation out; it is a bit like the old Irish joke: "We wouldn't have started from here." But that situation has to be sorted out if we are to have a health service that is fit for the 21st century.
We need a system that values the staff, keeps them working and allows them to progress in the NHS—and provides the best possible care for patients. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to take those points on board and that we will gradually move forward, to sort out the mess that currently exists and to put into place a much more efficient and fair system. I look forward to hearing his response.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on obtaining the time for this important debate. It is clear from her speech that she has taken an interest in the subject for a long time and knows a great deal about it. Making the most of the contributions of all staff, including the valuable work carried out by health care assistants, is absolutely integral to our ability to deliver the ambitious programme for modernising the national health service and to meeting the increasing expectations of patients and staff.
We need health care staff to be adaptable and responsive, and able to work effectively within teams where role boundaries are flexible. Health care assistants are an invaluable and important part of the NHS. As my hon. Friend has said, they make an important contribution to the direct care of patients as well as supporting a range of health professionals in a wide variety of ways.
There is no fixed definition of what a health care assistant is or does. The latest figures show that there are almost 18,000 health care assistants and almost 67,000


support staff employed in the NHS. The majority of health care assistants work in trusts and many work with the elderly. A significant number work with vulnerable adults, such as those with psychiatric illnesses or learning difficulties. Others work with mothers and babies, with children, or in the community.
Support staff work to provide essentials such as ensuring the cleanliness of the hospital environment, and food and drink for patients. The term "health care assistant" has also developed as an umbrella term for a variety of staff groups. Those include staff whose work is supervised by chiropodists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and speech and language therapists.
For statistical purposes, the guidance on occupation codes used in our census of NHS staff defines health care assistants as support staff who are trained, or who are undertaking training, in job-related competencies through national vocational qualifications or other local training. In the service itself, the term "health care assistant" is often used interchangeably with titles used for other staff who undertake similar roles and provide similar support, for example health care support workers, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants.
Ultimately, the responsibility for determining the job role of a health care assistant lies with the employer. Different skills and different levels of skills will be needed in different working and clinical environments. We feel that local managers need to be able to provide the right sort of services for their locality and a rigid definition would restrict their ability to meet local service needs.
Similarly, it is a matter for employers to provide the necessary training and resources to enable staff to undertake their duties. We are aware that many NHS employers use local and national frameworks to train their health care assistants. Many use NVQs, or their component occupational standards, to specify the competence and performance outcomes of health care assistants in the workplace. Those standards provide a measure of quality and enable clear specification of the roles and responsibilities of staff. The attainment of NVQs is supported by on-the-job training and assessment, as well as off-the-job training. The latter is provided either directly by the employer or by an education provider.
The national health service executive has, for some time, supported the use of NVQs and occupational standards. It did so in 1995 and in subsequent education and training guidance issued to the NHS. That approach has been reinforced by the approach taken in the first human resource framework for the NHS, "Working Together", which we published last September. One of the aims of the framework is to make the NHS a better place to work in. Developing the commitment and skills of staff, including health care assistants, will be one way of achieving that. The House should not underestimate our commitment to strengthening the role of human resources in the national health service, ensuring that we are a good employer, and ensuring that we can develop the skills of our staff. That means that NHS employers will increasingly have better human resources planning, and better development plans for individual members of staff.
As my hon. Friend said, some health care assistants will wish to make progress in their NHS careers. Recognition of the skills and experience of such staff provides them with increasing opportunities to gain entry to programmes leading to professional qualifications, particularly nursing qualifications. Education consortiums are working with higher education institutions to open up nursing careers to as wide a range of people as possible, including existing NHS staff such as health care assistants. As has been said, we have already opened a route whereby NHS employers can second health care assistants on to pre-registration nursing diploma courses. That allows local education consortiums to fund up to 80 per cent of an employee's salary—up to a certain limit—with the employer funding the remainder.
That new approach has proved to be of considerable interest in the service. Therefore, as part of the £50 million nurse recruitment plan announced in September by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), up to 200 additional secondments have been funded this year, with up to 1,000 additional places being made available over the next three years. The package also includes measures to provide non-means-tested bursaries for enrolled nurses who wish to return to work and convert to first-level registration, and an expansion of part-time and flexible pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes.
There are also a number of local schemes established by the NHS, which recruit health care assistants, support them in the achievement of level-three national vocational qualifications in care or modern apprenticeships, and, using the funding that I have described, second them to nursing diploma programmes. I understand that in my hon. Friend's constituency such a scheme is operated jointly between Warrington and Halton NHS trusts and the north and mid-Cheshire training and enterprise council.
The scheme has three stages. Young people are employed by the trusts, and, in collaboration with the TEC, undergo a two-year modern apprenticeship course. Provided that students secure an NVQ, they are then placed on a nursing diploma course at Chester college, funded by the local education and training consortium at the college. Placements are undertaken at Warrington and Halton NHS trusts, and, on successful completion of their diploma courses, students are guaranteed employment. The scheme is an example of the way in which the NHS, TECs and education providers can work well together, helping individuals to achieve their potential, addressing nursing shortages and helping patients at the same time. Those developments are supported by the Government's wider approach to lifelong learning, which seeks to enable those capable of progressing to do so through education and training opportunities.
More recently, we have published proposals for the modernisation of the NHS pay system in our paper, "Agenda for Change". Our aim is a modern pay system that will enable staff to do their best for patients, working in new ways and breaking down traditional barriers. We want a system that pays fairly and equitably for work done, with career progression based on responsibility, competence and satisfactory performance: a system that will simplify and modernise conditions of service, providing national core conditions and considerable local flexibility.
Our proposals identify people—such as health care assistants—who should have more scope to develop their jobs. Those people will be encouraged to take up training opportunities and secure NVQs. Our proposals for pay reform recognise that, in many cases, employers have created health care assistant posts to provide flexible support for nurses and other staff. Postholders often fulfil a wide variety of different roles. We want to preserve the benefits, while giving staff the security of core terms and pay minimums. "Agenda for Change" sets out the means to do that, recommending a national system with meaningful local flexibility.
We are also committed to working with unions and employers to agree the basis of a national job evaluation framework on which all NHS jobs can be assessed. That will be an essential underpinning to ensure equal pay for work of equal value, and will be relevant to groups performing a wide variety of roles, including health care assistants. Staff should receive equal pay when they are performing the same role; differences should reflect variations in skill, role and responsibility.
The skill mix that an NHS organisation requires locally will depend on a number of factors: the type of services that it delivers, the type of patient who is being treated, and the environment in which patients are treated. NHS organisations must therefore determine the mix of skills, roles and staff that they need at local level. But, although training is available for health care assistants, they cannot be a substitute for professional staff. The current national average ratio between qualified and unqualified staff is more than two to one—about 70:30—although I understand that in my hon. Friend's constituency it is about 60:40, and that the local NHS trust is taking action to define the roles and training needs of its support workers.
It is important for health care assistants to be properly and adequately supervised to ensure the safety of patients in their care, the quality of the care offered, and the accountability of individuals involved in providing care. Support staff should carry out assigned tasks involving direct care in support of, and supervised by, other registered health professionals. Employers also have a role to play: they should ensure that employees are suitably qualified and competent to perform the duties for which they are employed, and that high standards of patient care are maintained at all times.
Concern has been expressed by, among others, my hon. Friend, about the development of the roles undertaken by health care assistants, and it is well known that concern has been expressed in the past about the need for the regulation of support workers. On 9 February, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lady Hayman, announced that the Government had accepted most of the recommendations of the body that conducted an independent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, whose report was submitted in autumn last year. During extensive consultations, fears were

expressed about the threat to public protection that might be posed by unregulated support workers, including health care assistants. The reviewers recommended, and we have accepted, that a short review should be commissioned to explore the scope and need for regulation. It will be a UK-wide review, and UK health Ministers will want to consider its terms of reference carefully.
The Government have already announced plans to regulate social care staff by setting up a statutory general social care council. The driving force behind the council will be the need to increase the protection of service users, their carers and the general public. Any review of health care assistants will have to take account of the Government's proposals for a general social care council, published in the social services White Paper, "Modernising Social Services".
Systems of professional self-regulation and protection of title play a vital role in ensuring public protection, but flexible role boundaries will help to meet changing health care needs and public expectations. Flexibility provides the scope that is necessary to develop health care teams to meet patient's needs. Well-trained health care assistants, working under the supervision of registered and accountable professionals, make an important contribution to care, and provide the ability to tailor skill mix to patient and service need. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency are maximised by appropriate skill mix. It is inefficient, and a misuse of highly and expensively trained professionals, to let them undertake care tasks that others, with the appropriate training and supervision, could undertake to the required standard.
We must ensure that we have enough nurses to support and supervise our health care assistants. Registered professionals are required to delegate appropriately to support staff, and employers are required to ensure that their staff are competent to undertake the tasks required of them. We must also have enough nurses to provide the treatment and care that patients need. The new human resources framework is a major step forward in our drive to meet those aspirations.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of May 1997 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, the number of postal voters and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Good Friday Agreement

Mr. Roger Stott: What recent meetings she has had with the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [71198]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I last met representatives of the Irish Government in Dublin on 3 February. We agreed on the need for the Governments and all others concerned to make intensive efforts in the coming weeks to bring about the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. That is what the people voted for, north and south, and that is what we must do.

Mr. Stott: When my right hon. Friend met the Taoiseach on 3 February, clearly, a lot of serious and difficult issues still had to be resolved in the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. What progress has been made on the implementation of the north-south bodies, which are clearly an important element in the agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: Agreement in principle on the north-south bodies was reached by the parties on 18 December and that determination was approved by the Assembly on 15 February. We are now going through the negotiations and consultations on the particular legislation and the detail of that, which is why the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is not with us today; he is taking part in those negotiations. The Government are doing everything that they can to ensure that all necessary preparations are put in hand, ready for 10 March. I trust that other parties will do the same.

Mr. David Trimble: In her discussions with the Irish Government, has the Secretary of State raised the issue of the British-Irish Council? Can she tell us what steps have been taken to ensure that the British-Irish Council is in place with at least as significant a role as the North-South Council on devolution day?

Marjorie Mowlam: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is in hand, so that the particular structure, priorities and all aspects of the British-Irish Council are in place on 10 March, as we hope all different parts of the Good Friday agreement will be, so that everything is ready is move together. Visits have been paid to Scotland and to Wales by both me and my right hon. Friend the Minister, who also had the pleasure of going to the Channel Islands, to ensure that all the parties involved are part of those discussions and that positive progress is made.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Secretary of State, and indeed the House, would welcome the decision by the new Northern Ireland Assembly by a

75 per cent. vote to accept the structures of the north-south implementing bodies. Does the Secretary of State agree that, to enhance the prospects for full implementation of the agreement and devolution in particular, if her Government and the Irish Government together could persuade the IRA, UVF and UDA to make even a gesture of decommissioning, it would unlock the blockages that are possibly there at the moment and would be in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, if not in the letter of the law?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the general comments that the hon. Gentleman makes. Our position has been that decommissioning needs to take place now and movement on the Executive needs to take place. Those two steps need to happen not just in the letter of the Good Friday agreement, but in its spirit and the obligation that the progress that has been made be matched elsewhere.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: It seems that, where the letter of the Good Friday agreement remains silent, the spirit of the agreement is moved forward by the public pressure within the Province. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is that public pressure that has probably led to a reduction in paramilitary beatings? If so, can she give any idea of how she sees that public pressure being brought to bear to ensure that the spirit of the Good Friday agreement addresses the problem of exiles—people who have been exiled by paramilitary edict? How does she think that spirit can be brought to bear on decommissioning?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. The spirit of the agreement—and the efforts made by many members of the public, party leaders, the Government and others to ensure that punishment beatings are reduced—is having some effect: beatings have declined in the past couple of weeks. However, that does not hold for last night's events—one of the most barbaric, inhuman and sadistic punishment beatings. Last night, as a husband was not home, a wife had carved on her body a death threat against him. It was a very clear example—if we needed any more of them—of why punishment beatings must end. Condemnation by the public and by political parties across the board exerts some pressure. Ultimately, however, as another step in encouraging the end of punishment beatings, it is equally important that we break the cycle of violence and implement the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Have the issues of violence, intimidation and the continuing exile of many families been discussed with the Irish Government? If so, what was their response?

Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done to increase public pressure on resolving the issues of exiles, the disappeared and paramilitary assaults. We have, obviously, discussed the issues with the Irish Government and with the political parties. I assure the House that the security forces and the Government—like everyone else involved in the matter—are doing everything possible to try to stop them.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Taoiseach, me and others who


passionately share her view that an Executive should be established as soon as possible in the interests of good governance in Northern Ireland; that an Executive can be established only if Sinn Fein-IRA commence proper decommissioning of illegally held weapons; and that, without that, it is not possible for their representatives to take ministerial positions?

Marjorie Mowlam: I share the Taoiseach's view that decommissioning should happen now, and that the Executive should be formed. Both need to happen for the process to move forward.

Mr. MacKay: Does the Secretary of State further agree that, in the past nine months, the British Government, the Irish Government and all the democratically elected parties that have never taken part in violence have done everything possible to ensure that the Executive is established? They have fulfilled all their obligations, and ensured that all the structures are now in place. The last thing that needs to happen is decommissioning of illegally held weapons. The only people who are now obstructing creation of the Executive that we want are Sinn Fein-IRA, who have not yet decommissioned.

Marjorie Mowlam: There has been only one decommissioning—which we welcome—that by the LVF. Decommissioning is now needed of the other parties represented in the talks; it is not only Sinn Fein-IRA but the loyalist paramilitaries. We have made it very clear that decommissioning has to happen for progress to be made. It is not a precondition but an obligation. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, it is in the spirit of the agreement. It is no good for us simply to say, "This must happen, that must happen," although we both may fundamentally believe that both are necessary. What has to happen is that the parties in the process who signed up to the good Friday agreement do what they are doing in Belfast now: keep talking and find a way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — Energy Market

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What actions she has taken to improve the working of the energy market in Northern Ireland. [71199]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on north-south gas interconnection. The regulator has recently invited applications for gas licences for areas outside Greater Belfast. The regulator is now concluding his generator contract negotiations, and liberalisation of the electricity and gas market is proceeding.

Mr. Quinn: Does the Minister realise the tremendous work that is being done by a team of civil engineers, led by Professor Adrian Long, at Queen's university, Belfast, to investigate alternative energy sources? Northern Ireland has a great opportunity to be in there at the beginning of development of alternative energy sources. Will the Minister consider asking his officials to start discussions with that important, internationally recognised team on whether there is greater potential for Northern Ireland to benefit from such alternative methodologies?

Mr. Ingram: I am aware of the work that has been done, and we take a close interest in such research and

development activity, which is critical to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Government have established a target of 45 MW of renewables plant by 2005 and, in pursuit of that objective, the Government have made two non-fossil fuel obligation orders, requiring Northern Ireland Electricity to purchase some 32 MW of power from renewable sources. Obviously, any local research and development activity hopefully will be exploited.

Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I appreciate the Government funding that has provided electricity and gas interconnection. Does the Minister agree that that will help to drive down energy prices? Does he further agree that, if Northern Ireland as a whole is to benefit economically, the gas should be distributed more widely than to the Greater Belfast area? Will he seek to bring that about?

Mr. Ingram: We inherited a botched electricity market in Northern Ireland, with a structured system resulting in high prices, making Northern Ireland way out of line with elsewhere in the UK. We have had to address that and, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, we are trying to encourage more electricity into Northern Ireland through the interconnector with Scotland and to encourage more gas, both north-south and east-west.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prisoner Releases

Mr. Ian Bruce: What percentage of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences has been released to date under the Good Friday agreement. [71200]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): To date, applications have been received from 503 indeterminate and determinate prisoners. Of those, 12 per cent. have not been processed; the prisoners being, in the main, ineligible under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Some 48 per cent. have already been released, and a further 30 per cent. have received specified dates for release in the future. Some 10 per cent. remain to be processed by the sentence review commissioners.

Mr. Bruce: The Minister is saying, effectively, that about half the prisoners who are due to be released have been released. He will know that the terrorist organisations and their political mouthpieces signed up to the Good Friday Agreement only because they knew that they would get their prisoners out. One of their obligations is to decommission their weapons. Would it not be sensible simply to say to all organisations, both loyalist and republican, that no more prisoners will be released until they start delivering on the decommissioning of weapons? That does not destroy the agreement—it simply fulfils it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Ingram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and the support that he receives from some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. However, there ain't no simple answers to a peace process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spelt out the way forward. To do what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be to rewrite the Good Friday agreement. Maximum pressure must be brought to bear from all parts of Northern Ireland—from the community, the parties involved, the UK and Republic of Ireland


Governments and any other international support—to impress upon those who hold illegal weapons that they must be removed from Northern Ireland if peace is to prevail.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many of the prisoners who have been released early under the agreement have had to be recalled for a breach in their licence conditions?

Mr. Ingram: None.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister therefore say that he has no knowledge of any involvement by any of the released prisoners in any mutilations or beatings?

Mr. Ingram: We have no knowledge of that in terms of the way in which the hon. Gentleman raises the point. The Chief Constable has said that all of the paramilitary organisations have been associated in some way with paramilitary assaults. I would suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that we do not share detailed intelligence across the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have confirmed the Chief Constable's assessment, and we have accepted it. The effective way of dealing with those people is to bring evidence forward, to bring them to trial and to put them in prison for their acts.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister recognise how demoralising it is for the police force to see the release of those whom they have gone to great efforts to arrest and get convicted? Will he confirm that, if the terrorists who committed the outrage in Omagh are caught and convicted, there will be no accelerated release for them and that the recommendations of the judge or judges who take part in the trial will be honoured?

Mr. Ingram: We have made it clear consistently that the issue of prisoner releases is difficult to handle. The Good Friday agreement laid it out as a clear prospect. The Government have implemented what was requested of them in the Good Friday agreement, to which the people of Northern Ireland signed up. The Omagh tragedy happened after 10 April, so those who may be brought to justice for it will not be covered by the existing legislation.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is it true that a released prisoner was living in the house in west Belfast where IRA weapons were found recently?

Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman has such information, he should pass it to the RUC. I do not have that intelligence information. If he has more specific evidence that would help the RUC with its inquiries, he should pass it on.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: While we accept that there ain't no simple answers to the peace process, it is clear from the figures that the Minister has given the House this afternoon that the majority of prisoners will soon have been released. Does he accept that, although the Government have honoured all their

commitments, including prisoner release, Sinn Fein-IRA have not started decommissioning? Does he find it acceptable that the majority of prisoners will have been released without decommissioning having taken place?

Mr. Ingram: I do not know that to be the case. There is still momentum in the process. Discussions are taking place as we speak to find resolutions to that complex issue. As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said, we want all illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland to be decommissioned. We never said that that would happen overnight. From the way in which he asked his question, I take it that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the import of the Good Friday agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sure Start Initiative

Caroline Flint: If she will make a statement regarding the application of the sure start initiative to Northern Ireland. [712021

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): This morning I launched for consultation a Northern Ireland child care strategy entitled "Children First", seeking views on proposals for strengthening and expanding pre-school provision, child care and family support. Views are specifically sought on how best to address the aims of sure start. My discussions with key child care organisations have already identified the need to consider a different approach in Northern Ireland.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the launch of the "Children First" child care document. Sure start is a UK-wide initiative and plans are already under way in Scotland, Wales and England. With the launch of the document today, I hope that we can be certain that community groups in Northern Ireland, which has the worst child poverty rates, the worst child care provision and the highest number of lone parents in the United Kingdom, will get access to the resources that they need to meet the demands.

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I should like to elaborate on the launch of the document this morning. I was in contact with Childcare Northern Ireland and Barnardos to examine child care. The document, which was agreed by the voluntary groups, translates the sure start aims to a Northern Ireland context. That process starts today. There is a different context to sure start in Northern Ireland. We are building on the good work that has already been done by the voluntary and statutory services. Several organisations have told me that there is great merit in not sticking to the proposals that have been outlined for England.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am sure that the Minister will join the Prime Minister in agreeing that sure start is a vital element in looking after children and families. Will he assure the House that all the money allocated by the Treasury for that programme in Northern Ireland will indeed go towards its implementation?

Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I have very good news for him: today,


I announced a £51 million package for child care, £27 million of which is specifically for an extra 7,000 pre-school places, so that, by 2001, more than 85 per cent. of parents in Northern Ireland will have a choice, whereas, before the Government came into office, the figure was less than 50 per cent. I think that he will agree that that is tremendous progress. The money will also provide 2,500 jobs and an extra 26,000 places, and I hope that he will agree that that is good news.

Oral Answers to Questions — Good Friday Agreement

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [71203]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government aim to have completed the legislative preparations for a transfer of powers to the new institutions by 10 March. I welcome last week's approval by the Assembly of the determination on the number and functions of ministerial offices and on areas for north-south co-operation. The Government are honouring their commitments and I look forward to others honouring theirs.

Mr. Temple-Morris: We all wish my right hon. Friend well in not very easy times in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Does she agree that the removal of tensions is a most important factor? One particular tension relates to the communities in Portadown, where there is a real and long-standing problem. What impact is that having, one way or the other—I fear that it is the other—on the implementation of the agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: The successful implementation of the Good Friday agreement depends to a large extent on confidence. The situation at Drumcree is a corrosive influence on progress. The only way in which progress will be made at Drumcree is for both sides to talk and try to find a way forward. We are doing everything that we can to help with that. We have recently asked the head of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in Scotland, Mr. Frank Blair—no relation—to act as a negotiator and facilitator in that process. No one in Northern Ireland wants a repeat of last year's events at Drumcree, and we will do all that we can to avoid it. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the House please come to order? It is very noisy, with people shouting across the Chamber. We need a little order before we can proceed.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that no institution of government in Northern Ireland can claim to be democratic if it contains the representatives of a party known to her to be inextricably linked with an organisation of tenor that has publicly declared its intention to remain fully armed and in an aggressive state?

Marjorie Mowlam: As I have often said to the House, I base my judgment on the information, facts and evidence that I am given. On that basis, I do not agree with the assumptions built into the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, so I have no difficulty in believing that the 

parties in the process are on ceasefire. If he has information to the contrary, as his question implies, he should send it to the RUC.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that two important aspects of the agreement relate to the North-South Council and the British-Irish Council and urge, on the latter, that no strategic decisions be taken by Dublin and London before the elections in Scotland and Wales? If the Council is to have a fixed location, as is the case with the Nordic Council, may I suggest Glasgow?

Marjorie Mowlam: I find it difficult to give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance, on the first part of his question, that no strategic decisions will be taken, because that would involve timing and would put the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—if progress were made on 10 March—in difficulty if certain parts were implemented and not others. We have seen the tensions that can develop if some parts move quicker than others and it is important that all move together. If the real crux of his question was a request for the headquarters to be in Glasgow, I hear what he says, but he is not the only one to make suggestions along those lines.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Last August, the Secretary of State provided the Assembly with the draft standing orders necessary to fill ministerial posts. Since then, she has not forwarded the finalised copy to the Assembly. Does she contemplate any changes and will the orders be forwarded immediately?

Marjorie Mowlam: It is difficult for me to answer that question, because I am not in Belfast. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is dealing with the draft standing orders in Belfast today. We look forward to sending them to parties as quickly as possible, but the details and arrangements are being worked on at this moment.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements to achieving the Good Friday agreement is the future of policing in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that making fast progress with the introduction of the police ombudsman, the community awareness project and the ending of the RUC canteen culture will bring great benefits to the people of Northern Ireland and could signal the way ahead for policing in the rest of the country?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The future of policing, as she rightly points out, is a difficult question and one of the big problems that we have to cope with in Northern Ireland. I hope that the introduction of the police ombudsman will happen quickly. We are interviewing this afternoon for the post, and a number of other aspects of the legislation are being implemented. The Patten commission will report in the summer and I wish to wait and see what it proposes so that we can maximise the improvements on offer.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister earlier referred to the peace associated with the Good Friday agreement. Does she agree that it is a fragile sort of peace when arms are not being decommissioned, and a strange


sort of peace when people are being beaten and maimings are happening on a daily basis in Northern Ireland? Can she foresee any circumstances in which the early release of prisoners could be stopped to ensure that more progress could be made towards a real, lasting peace in Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is a difficult period. It is a difficult, tense time and it is not easy. I do not agree with the assumption in the second part of his question that stopping early releases would improve the situation. I would like to know what evidence he has to support that view, because all the evidence that I have is to the contrary.

Judy Mallaber: What consultations she has had with the Northern Ireland parties on the regulations arising from the legislation to implement the Good Friday agreement. [71204]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): We are continuing in intensive consultations with all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly over all aspects of the legislative and preparations for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We shall work as closely as possible with them.

Judy Mallaber: My right hon. Friend knows the importance attached to the equalities and human rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement by those of us who tabled amendments to the legislation, which were eventually accepted. My right hon. Friend has to deal with many difficult issues, but is she able to give the House any idea of any plans in progress to implement the equalities and human rights provisions and, in particular, to set up the two commissions?

Marjorie Mowlam: I can assure my hon. Friend, as I did the House earlier on the other aspects of the Good Friday agreement that are being put in place in time for 10 March, that the appointments procedure for the new equality commission is in progress. We are looking forward to the working group established on setting priorities and new structures for the equality commission reporting soon. Then we will be able to move, I hope in a matter of weeks, to an announcement on the equality commission. As for the human rights commission, we have appointed the chairman, Brice Dixon, and I expect to be able to announce the other commissioners next week. I assure my hon. Friend that progress is being made on both those institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party does not deserve to be in office if it does

not promote justice and fairness, especially by ensuring that people of all races and colours enjoy equality and that all creeds are respected? Does he agree that we should be happy to be judged at the next election on our record in promoting that?

The Prime Minister: I am proud that it was this Government who set up the Lawrence inquiry. I am happy to accept its judgment, and the judgment to which my hon. Friend has just referred. I should like to add that I think it right today to praise Doreen and Neville Lawrence for their courage and dignity. As a nation, we should confront honestly the racism that still exists in our society: as a nation, we should find within ourselves the will to overcome it.
The publication of today's report on the killing of Stephen Lawrence is a very important moment in the life of our country. It is a moment to reflect, to learn and to change. It will certainly lead to new laws but, more than that, it must lead to new attitudes, to a new era in race relations, and to a new more tolerant and more inclusive Britain.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that every decent person in the country, regardless of politics, will wish to show sympathy and support for the family of Stephen Lawrence, and will feel shame and disgust that his murderers have not been brought to justice? Does he also agree that, if some good is to come out of that appalling crime, we must all learn the lessons of what went wrong and commit ourselves to build a nation in which every citizen, regardless of colour or creed, is treated with justice and respect?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments. It is also important today to recognise that the report and its findings should not lead us to conclusions about only the police service, or any other service in British society; the report is about the whole of British society and its public services. It is also about what we must all do—collectively, across the political parties—to make sure that those appalling events lead to an improvement in race relations throughout the country.

Mr. Hague: Following on from that, does the Prime Minister agree that our police force will need—and will want—changes to be made to root out racism and to prevent such an injustice happening again? However, will he also agree that to condemn every police officer in London or the country as racist would itself be prejudiced and wrong? The great majority of men and women in the police force do their best in an incredibly difficult job, on behalf of their fellow citizens. Does he share my hope that we will debate the lessons of today's report with frankness and honesty, and that a hunt for scapegoats will help no one?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important that we debate the report honestly and properly, and that we act on its recommendations. What is important today, not only for the Lawrence family but for the whole of our society, is that the report's recommendations—whose implementation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will set out later—deliver the most comprehensive agenda


for improving race relations for many decades. The test of our sincerity as law makers in this House is not how well we can express sympathy with the Lawrence family, but how well we implement the recommendations to make sure that such an incident never again happens in our country.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read The Western Morning News today? If so, he may have noted that in a exclusive survey commissioned by the newspaper, seven out of 10 firms in the west country would welcome being able to join the euro. Will my right hon. Friend note that people who know about and care about British jobs, investment and trade warmly welcome his statement yesterday that we have a national changeover plan, which is good, decent, British common sense?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in all the regional press, and in The Western Morning News in particular. Her point is surely right. The vast majority of British business wants the sensible, balanced course set out by the Government yesterday, in which we indicate our direction, set down the conditions in our national economic interest and make sure that we make the necessary preparations so that the British people can have a proper choice. That is the true way, no matter what is said by that part of the Conservative party that is hostile to everything to do with Europe. That is how properly to implement British national interests.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In a few moments, the House and the country must consider the very public consequences of the private tragedy of the death of Stephen Lawrence. I hope that, as the Prime Minister has said, those consequences will extend well beyond the police force and bring changes to our society as a whole.
I see no point, however, in seeking to anticipate a report that will be published in a few moments time.
May I, therefore, ask the Prime Minister a question of concern to the people of Scotland? Is he aware, and can he confirm, that under his Government the education budgets of 29 out of 32 Scottish local authorities have been cut by £100 million in real terms?
The Prime Minister: From this April, we have given the largest single increase in education over the next three years that our country has ever known. That money is going to schools in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It had been denied them for years by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Ashdown: I am surprised to hear the Prime Minister attempt to deny my figures, which came from his own Scottish Office. Will he confirm, therefore, some further figures from the Scottish Office? For every £100 invested in Scottish education by the Tories, his Government are investing £96. The figures also show that by the end of this Parliament, Scottish education and schools will be more underfunded than they were three years ago under the Tories. Why should Scotland put up with second-class education under Labour? Does the

Prime Minister not realise that if he will not fund first-class education in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament will have to do so for him?

The Prime Minister: On the budget for Scotland and education, what the right hon. Gentleman says is complete nonsense. We have made an increase in education spending, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently set out a programme to ensure more nursery education and more people going into higher education. A school building programme outside local authority budgets is also providing literally millions of pounds for rebuilding Scottish schools. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that what he says about the figures is nonsense. If people want to increase provision for education, they should vote for the party that is, in government, putting through the largest education increase that the country has ever seen.

Mr. Tom Clarke: While I utterly condemn violence from whatever source it may come, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that Turkey would be wise to accept the advice of the European Union by ensuring that the trial of Abdullah Ocalan is both fair and seen to be fair? As one who visited northern Iraq at the beginning of last year, may I assure the Prime Minister that now is the time for all parties to come together to heal old wounds? In the light of new evidence of ethnic cleansing, would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will support and defend Kurdish organisations that are genuinely and passionately committed to peace and to individual human rights?

The Prime Minister: We condemn terrorism in all its forms. However, we have said repeatedly that Ocalan should receive a fair trial and that his physical safety should be assured.
As for the Iraqi Kurdish groups, my right hon. Friend knows that the Government have long-standing contacts with both main groups. We welcome the agreement that their leaders signed in Washington last September to enhance full reconciliation. I also point out that we support the Kurds through the United Nations oil-for-food programme, and our bilateral programme for northern Iraq is worth £3 million a year. RAF aircraft continue to patrol the no-fly zone precisely in order to protect the Kurds from Saddam Hussein. The Kurdish groups have told us how much they value the work that the Government have done, in the form of aid and military assistance, to protect the Kurdish people.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Five years ago, the French Government were prepared to invoke the Luxembourg compromise to save a few thousand jobs in French shipyards. This Thursday, will this Government be prepared to invoke the Luxembourg compromise to save 5,000 jobs in the British art market? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right [Interruption.] It is a very serious issue. We obviously oppose the directive and we shall continue to do so. We rule out absolutely nothing with regard to the tactics that we employ in this area. We will ensure that we get the


best deal possible for Britain. As a result of the Government's previous efforts, substantial concessions have been made available to Britain. However, they do not go far enough and we cannot agree to the directive at present.

Mr. Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend recall, as I do, the previous Government's promise that rail privatisation would result in major improvements in rail services? The only changes that my constituents have experienced are higher fares and poorer services. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend ensure that tomorrow, at the rail summit, which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—and at which all key players in the rail industry will be present, the fare-paying public and the taxpayers get a better return for the £1.1 billion subsidy that the rail industry has taken from them?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should pay no attention to the catcalls from the other side. After all, rail privatisation is one of the many scandals that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. It has delivered a poorer service for the customer and, because of the way in which the Conservatives sold it, hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost to the public purse. If the Conservatives had any sense of shame, they would apologise for that. However, as with so much else, we will clean up their mess.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the present situation is unacceptable. Rail companies that cannot or will not deliver will simply have no future in the industry. It will take time, but we will put the rail industry back on its feet and save it from the predicament in which the Conservatives left it.

Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that he failed to answer yesterday every time that it was asked? Will he make the pound shadow the euro before the next election?

The Prime Minister: I certainly did answer that question yesterday: I said no.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister did not say no yesterday. [Interruption.] No, he did not.

Madam Speaker: Order. This noise is very time consuming.

Mr. Hague: In any case, the Prime Minister is not being straight with the people of this country on this subject. That is because article 121 of the Amsterdam treaty says that to join the euro requires
the observance of the … margins provided … for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
The Chancellor's advisers say it; the responsible European Commissioner says it; so why does not the Prime Minister come clean and admit to people that that is what he would have to do to join the euro?

The Prime Minister: Because it is not, and I do not accept it. I have been asked this many, many times—is it our intention to go back into the exchange rate mechanism

and to shadow the euro? The answer is no, but what we will do is conduct economic policy in this country's national interest. That is precisely what we are doing, and that is the right thing to do. This is the latest of the euro scares, and it will fail like the other ones.

Mr. Hague: It is the Prime Minister's friend Gavyn Davies who says that
at some point the Bank of England will have to be told to 'shadow' the euro (instead of inflation) for a two-year period".
Is that a euro scare from Gavyn Davies? It is the European Commissioner responsible who says:
If and when the UK decides to join the euro it will have to comply with the same conditions as … the first wave countries. There were five criteria for membership".
Is the European Commission spreading a euro scare? Is Gavyn Davies spreading a euro scare? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister does not want to admit that he will have to run the economic policy of this country in the interests of joining the euro and not in the interests of Britain?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is trying to catch up on what he lost yesterday. [Interruption.] After all, after yesterday we have got two Tory parties. One says, "No never," the other agrees with us, and he is the leader of neither of them. The answer is that, as other countries have not been members for two years of the exchange rate mechanism, there is no obligation upon us to do it and we do not accept it.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister tries to refer to who lost yesterday. Is he aware that in the last six hours, 100,000 people have called The Sun to say that they want to keep the euro? [Interruption.] What is more, they regard him as a love rat. He has produced a national handover plan that does not come clean on the costs of joining the euro, that does not explain how the business cycles would converge, and that does not come clean about the fact that with convergence nowhere in sight, his plan means running the British economy in the interests of his campaign to join the euro and not in the interests of this country.

The Prime Minister: A more interesting poll may be how many of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers will wish to keep him. I do not want to start another debate in the Conservative party. The national changeover plan has been produced with the consent, and at the request, of the vast bulk of British business so that we can make sensible preparations for entry into the euro, provided that the economic conditions that we have set out are met. It is supported by the overwhelming majority of people who understand that irrespective of one's view of the euro, it is surely important to make preparations. What is utterly absurd is the position that he has landed himself in, which is to say that the euro will be a disaster next Parliament but may be entirely acceptable the Parliament after. The truth is that our position sets out a clear direction and the economic conditions. It is balanced, sensible and right, and it is what this country, I believe, will accept.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: After that, may I ask a sensible question? Is the Prime Minister aware that at lunchtime today a petition containing 31,000 signatures was handed to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) protesting against proposed closure of the Coastguard station in Liverpool? Given that Liverpool is now developing rapidly again, that gas and oil production in Morecambe bay and the Irish sea is continuing, and that Blackpool seaside resort attracts 18 million visitors a year, will my right hon. Friend instruct the appropriate Minister to reverse the decision before lives are needlessly lost?

The Prime Minister: I cannot instruct the Minister to do that. I am sure that the Minister, who will have the petition, will have heard the representations. If my hon. Friend would like to arrange a meeting with the Minister, we will arrange that. I shall take a personal interest in the matter and respond to my hon. Friend in detail, setting out the reasons for the Government's decision when we take it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour Government are introducing means-testing of widow's pensions?

The Prime Minister: We believe that the reforms of bereavement benefits are right in order to ensure both that the money goes to the people who need it most, and that we can afford, within public spending, to extend widow's benefit to widowers. It is a compromise, but we believe it to be a sensible one.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm today's figures, which show that 36,500 people, including almost 3,000 qualified nurses, have sought to rejoin or join the staff of the national health service? Does not that reflect a massive vote of confidence in this Government's plans for the future of the NHS?

The Prime Minister: The nursing line that has been set up to try to attract people back into the nursing profession has, I am very pleased to say, been immensely successful. As my hon. Friend says, more than 36,000 people have already contacted it. Over the next few years, we are making available funds for another 10,000 nursing places. There are already 2,500 more nurses in training. Although there are many other problems with which we need to deal, and are dealing with, at least many people working in the national health service see a Government who are making a start on rebuilding it.

Mr. Robert Walter: It is some time since Ministers announced European agreement on lifting the beef export ban, but farmers in my constituency tell me that no beef has yet been exported. The reason for that is that the Government have not yet invited European Commission inspectors to look at the abattoirs that will be involved in the trade. When will that invitation be issued, and when will the first side of beef be exported?

The Prime Minister: It was always anticipated that beef exports would not begin immediately. As the hon.

Gentleman rightly says, the inspection needs to happen. We have of course invited the inspectors, and I believe that they will be visiting in the next few weeks. However, the matter is for the European Commission as well as the Government. We also want to make absolutely sure that, when the inspection happens, it is successful. A successful inspection is necessary for the final stages of the lifting of the ban.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last week of much needed investment in inland waterways? Will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department to bridge the last gap in the canal link between Lancashire and Yorkshire in the Rochdale area, which will benefit not only the environment and jobs but tourism in the wonderful borough of Rochdale?

The Prime Minister: This is an act of reconciliation that, obviously, we shall try to encourage. I am pleased to say that British Waterways is meeting the chief executive of the council later this week to discuss whether it can assist in any way.

Mr. Paul Keetch: It says here.

The Prime Minister: Well, it does say that here. Not even I can pretend to be an expert on the Rochdale canal. As it also says here, there is an application for Millennium Commission funding to ensure that the last part of the link is completed. Obviously, I cannot say whether that will be successful, but I wish the council well.

Sir Michael Spicer: If the euro goes on collapsing at its present rate, will the Prime Minister consider using the pound to prop it up? By the way, I asked about shadowing yesterday, and the Prime Minister did not say no.

The Prime Minister: I have always said no to that question. We shall not use the pound to prop up the euro and we shall not shadow the euro. We are setting out a sensible future course for this country. People, such as the hon. Gentleman, who are opposed not only to the euro but to everything European, are perfectly entitled to that view, but it is not in the country's interests.

Mr. Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend extend his support—I am sure that he will—to the Minister who is involved in the negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, which will improve rural diversification, increase the market focus of agriculture in our country and extend the care of our environment? Will he comment on the supposedly helpful remarks of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Those remarks were very unhelpful to our negotiating position. We believe that it is possible to achieve significant reform of the common agricultural policy and we shall argue for that. That is right not only for British farmers but, more importantly, for consumers in Britain and across Europe.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we have often been told by advocates of British membership of the exchange rate mechanism that it proved so disastrous for British industry and agriculture because we went in at the wrong exchange rate? Will he now tell us what he thinks may be the right rate of exchange for the pound sterling to enter a single European currency, not just on the day, but for ever?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be sensible to start negotiating that at the Dispatch Box. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism at that rate and then had us exit from it with colossal cost to the nation.

Q11. [71238] Mr. John Heppell: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that when he made his statement on the euro yesterday, it was welcomed by an ex-Deputy Prime Minister, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, an ex-Prime Minister and an almost ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats? Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has got this right?

The Prime Minister: I think that their remarks were of rather more value than those of someone who may, in time, be an ex-leader of the Conservative party.

Mr. David Trimble: I remind the Prime Minister of the recent forthright and unequivocal comments by the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Aherne,

about decommissioning and the formation of an Executive. In the light of those remarks, what advice would the Prime Minister now give to the Irish republican movement?

The Prime Minister: The advice is very clear: they should decommission their weapons. We have always said that, and I repeat it. I agree with what the Taoiseach said. The whole agreement must be implemented and we must know that violence has been given up for good, as we have always said. It is unreasonable to expect people to sit down together unless they know that that is the case.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: The people of Worcester have been on a promise for over 40 years to get a new hospital. When my right hon. Friend visited Worcester last July, he promised to give the project a shove. Has he anything to report to the people of Worcester?

The Prime Minister: When I visited Worcester last July, I gave my hon. Friend a personal assurance that the hospital would be built under the private finance initiative. I am delighted to say that there is a decision that allows the Worcester PFI scheme to progress. Of course, not only will a new hospital be built which was not built under the previous Government, but the large amount of extra investment in the health service in Worcester and elsewhere from this April will allow us to provide capital equipment in our hospitals, more doctors and nurses and better primary care and to start rebuilding the national health service after 18 years of neglect under the Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Stephen Lawrence Inquiry

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.
Copies of the inquiry's report and the appendices are available from the Vote Office. I know that hon. Members will want time to read and consider the report, and I can therefore tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed that there should be a full day's debate on the report as soon as possible.
Stephen Lawrence was a bright 18-year-old student with a promising future. He wanted to be an architect and was studying hard for his A-levels. At about 10.30 pm on Thursday, 22 April 1993, Stephen was waiting at a bus stop with his friend Duwayne Brooks in Well Hall road, Eltham, in south-east London. He was set upon in an unprovoked knife attack and was killed. There was only one reason for his murder. Stephen was black.
Any parents faced with the death of their son in such circumstances would have been devastated, but for Stephen's parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, their sense of despair has been compounded by the failure of our criminal justice system to deliver them justice—to secure the conviction of those responsible.
I think that I can speak for the whole House when I say that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence's campaign for the truth has been pursued by them with huge dignity, courage and determination. I should like to pay my personal tribute to them today.
I first met the family in early 1997, and saw both parents again shortly after becoming Home Secretary in May that year. They persuaded me of the case for a thorough, independent scrutiny of the investigation into their son's murder. In July 1997, I therefore announced to the House that I had appointed the former judge of the High Court, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, to conduct a full judicial inquiry. This was the first such inquiry under the Police Acts since Lord Scarman's into the 1981 Brixton riots.
The terms of reference the new inquiry were as follows:
To inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 to date, in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.
The inquiry examined the handling of the case in comprehensive detail. It held 69 days of public hearings, heard 88 witnesses and received some 100,000 pages of evidence. I wish to put on the record my deep gratitude to Sir William Macpherson and his three advisers. They were Tom Cook, the former deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire police; the Right Reverend Dr. John Sentamu, the Bishop of Stepney; and Dr. Richard Stone, chairman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality. I would also like to thank members of the inquiry team for their commitment and sensitivity in handling this very important inquiry.
The report is divided into two parts. The first part covers the police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence; the second part the wider lessons to be learned.

The main findings of the first part of the inquiry are as follows:
The conclusions to be drawn from all the evidence in connection with the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's racist murder are clear. There is no doubt that there were fundamental errors. The investigation was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers. A flawed Metropolitan Police review failed to expose these inadequacies. The second investigation could not salvage the faults of the first investigation.
The inquiry finds that that first investigation of the murder was "palpably flawed" and deserves severe criticism. The inquiry concludes:
there can be no excuses for such a series of errors, failures and lack of direction and control.
A review of the case was conducted in autumn 1993 by Detective Chief Superintendent John Barker. The inquiry has found that this review was factually incorrect and inadequate. The inquiry was concerned that no senior officer at any level tested or analysed the review and that Mr. Barker had produced a "flawed and indefensible" report.
In 1994, a second investigation of the case was established and this attempted to salvage the situation. The inquiry makes it clear that the second investigation, led by Detective Superintendent William Mellish, was conducted with great imagination, skill and sensitivity by the officers involved.
The inquiry also identified work by police officers and others at other stages of the investigation which it said was exemplary. Those officers are praised for their unstinting commitment to bring the racist killers to justice, but their efforts, in the view of the inquiry, were not sufficient to overcome the catalogue of errors and basic incompetence in the handling of this investigation.
The report concludes that
no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder.
The Government accept the findings and conclusions of the first part of this inquiry, which relates to the investigation into Stephen's murder.
The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, has asked me to tell the House that he shares that sense of shame. He has also asked me to tell the House that, as head of the Metropolitan police service, he fully accepts the findings of the inquiry, including those relating to him.
Sir Paul Condon took over as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in February 1993. Since coming into office, he has given strong personal leadership to improving the quality of service that the Metropolitan police provides to all sections of the community. A great deal has been achieved. For example, reported crime in London is at its lowest for nine years and Sir Paul is tackling the problems of police corruption with great vigour.
I have asked Sir Paul to continue to lead the Metropolitan police to deliver the programme of work that is now required. He has agreed. He will use the remaining 10 months of his office to take that work forward, including the agenda set by this report. I will support him and his successor in the work that lies ahead.
The central and most important issue for the inquiry was racism and whether and how that affected the handling of the case. The inquiry addresses that matter with care and with sensitivity. On the critical issue of institutional racism, its definition is:
Institutional racism consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
The inquiry found that, on that definition,
institutional racism exists within … both the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions countrywide.
The report says that institutional racism was apparent in a number of areas of the police handling of the case. The inquiry emphasised, however, that its findings do not suggest or imply that all police officers are racist or that the Metropolitan police service is racist in its policies. Indeed, the inquiry emphasises that, by the establishment under Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve of the Metropolitan police's racial and violent crime task force, the
signs are that the problem is being recognised and tackled.
The report then expresses the hope that
the catharsis of this Inquiry will lead to constructive action and not to further divisive views and outcomes".
That is a new definition of institutional racism, which I accept—and so does the Commissioner. The inquiry's assessment is clear and sensible. In my view, any long-established, white-dominated organisation is liable to have procedures, practices and a culture that tend to exclude or to disadvantage non-white people. The police service, in that respect, is little different from other parts of the criminal justice system—or from Government Departments, including the Home Office—and many other institutions.
The report makes 70 wide-ranging recommendations, and I welcome them all. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to go through each of the recommendations in turn today. I will instead lay a detailed response and action plan before the House, before the promised full day's debate on the report. However, I want to use this opportunity to spell out how we are implementing the main recommendations of the report, as part of our major and continuing programme of change for the police service and for the criminal justice system.
First, on the police service, I have ordered an immediate inspection of the Metropolitan police service by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which will include thorough scrutiny of unsolved murders and reviews of such cases. To pick up one of the recommendations of the inquiry, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary already incorporates much of the approach of Ofsted in its inspections of the police service and it will be moving further in that direction.
A new police discipline regime will be introduced from 1 April. I will ensure that that is subject to effective monitoring and I will consider any further changes in the light of that experience. I will make an improvement in the trust and confidence in policing among ethnic

minority communities a key ministerial priority for the police. I will use my statutory powers to ensure that every police force sets clear objectives to deal with racist crime better and to establish effective ways of demonstrating fairness in all aspects of policing.
I will set targets for the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority police and civilian staff. I announced last October our plans to ensure that every force reflects the ethnic diversity of the communities that it serves. I will chair a national conference of all chief constables and police authorities on that issue in April.
Stop-and-search powers under current legislation will remain unchanged, as recommended by the inquiry, but I will ensure that those powers are used more effectively and fairly. Londoners will, for the first time, be given a proper say in the running of their police service. From July next year, a police authority for London will sit alongside the new mayor and assembly. Legislation for that is already before the House.
Clear standards of performance will be put in place to ensure more effective police investigations of racist crimes. We have already changed the law to establish new offences of racially motivated crimes and the report makes wider recommendations for the criminal justice system. From next month, new guidelines will enable parties to an inquest to receive advance disclosure of evidence and documents. I have asked the Law Commission to consider the inquiry's proposal that the Court of Appeal be given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
As the inquiry proposes, we are already ensuring that victims, victims' families and vulnerable witnesses are treated more sensitively and fairly. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will extend greater support to vulnerable witnesses, and yesterday I announced a 50 per cent. increase in funding for the victim support scheme. Next week, I shall publish a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which examines police community relations across the country. It supports and reinforces the messages that have emerged from the inquiry.
The Macpherson report challenges us all, not just the police service. I want to use the opportunity that it gives us to tackle discrimination wherever it is found. I can announce today that we shall extend the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to cover the police, as the report recommends, but to cover all the public services. That means that in the civil service, the immigration service, and the national health service, for example, the law will back those who have been the subject of discrimination. The new law will allow the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate what is happening within individual police forces and other public services. Companies and other organisations in the private sector have long been subject to this legislation, but so far the Government have failed to keep their own house in order.
The Macpherson inquiry has demonstrated the failings of one very important public institution, the police service. The police have a special responsibility in our society, because day by day they are the immediate guardians of fairness and justice; but we would all be deluding ourselves if we believed that the issues thrown up by the inquiry affect only the police, for the report's


implications go much wider. The very process of the inquiry has opened all our eyes to what it is like to be black or Asian in Britain today, and the inquiry process has revealed some fundamental truths about the nature of our society—about our relationships one with another. Some of those truths are uncomfortable, but we must confront them.
I want this report to serve as a watershed in our attitudes to racism. I want it to act as a catalyst for permanent and irrevocable change, not just across our public services but across the whole of our society. The report does not place a responsibility on someone else; it places a responsibility on each of us. We must make racial equality a reality. The vision is clear: we must create a society in which every individual, regardless of colour, creed or race, has the same opportunities and respect as his or her neighbour. In terms of race equality, let us make Britain a beacon to the world.
Many countries already envy our record on race relations, and the race relations legislation of the 1960s and 1970s has made a significant difference to the treatment of black and Asian people in our country; but it has plainly not been enough. Over the coming weeks, the Prime Minister and I will spell out what the Government will be doing to drive home the programme of change. The report must mark the beginning of that process, not the end.
In her evidence to the inquiry, Mrs. Lawrence said:
I would like Stephen to be remembered as a young man who had a future. He was well loved and had he been given the chance to survive, maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white".
This report was born of the courage and determination of Neville and Doreen Lawrence: of their desire to get to the truth of what happened; of their desire to ensure that their son was never forgotten. The report is a testament to them, and upon the report we must build a lasting testament to Stephen.

Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and his promise of an early full day's debate on the report.
The death of Stephen Lawrence was an appalling tragedy. It was a particularly savage and cowardly murder. It was, without doubt, a racist murder. The family have clearly been through a traumatic time. I associate myself entirely with the Macpherson report when it says that the persistence and courage of the family in the face of tragedy and bitter disillusionment have been outstanding. Our aim must be to ensure that, as far as it is in our power, a case such as the Lawrence case never recurs.
Equally, it is totally objectionable that the killers of Stephen Lawrence remain free. That is an affront both to the Lawrence family and to the community. The report makes it clear that the investigation was entirely inadequate. Those responsible for that investigation deserve censure, but we must ensure improvements in the effectiveness of the police to prevent such failures of justice from recurring.
I reassert our opposition to racially prejudiced behaviour. It must have no place in the police. It must have no place in any other organisation, public or private. It must have no place in this country.
There is now an urgent need to build trust in the police where it does not exist, and to rebuild it where it has been destroyed. There is a massive task and no one should underestimate what is needed.
As it happens, I have, over a number of years, studied the police not only in this country, but in other European countries such as France, Holland and Germany, as well as looked at the position in the United States. In my judgment and, even more important, in the judgment of those overseas, the reputation of the police here among the public generally is higher than probably anywhere else in Europe and, arguably, the world.
That is not remotely an excuse for doing nothing—doing nothing is not an option—but it is an argument for recognising that there is a foundation of public trust on which we can build. Many people in this country look on the police as friends, not enemies. We must extend that feeling. Many people see the police as a service to which they can turn when in trouble. We must extend that perception. The police must be there to serve equally all our citizens, but let us for our part recognise that they often have to operate in very dangerous and very difficult situations.
In that respect, I am concerned about the use of the phrase "institutional racism"; I am concerned not about the way in which it is used in the report, but that it should not be used as a generalised condemnation of the whole of the service. I do not accept that and nor does Sir William Macpherson. As the Home Secretary said, he is talking of the failure of an organisation to provide
an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin.
No chief constable would deny that there have been serious failures of that kind, as there have been in other organisations, including, as Macpherson says, the criminal justice system itself.
As the report says, accepting that definition of institutional racism does not entail accepting that all policemen and policewomen in London are racist—which is an entirely unjustified charge. It also does not entail accepting that the policies of the Metropolitan police are racist.
The aim of the report's 70 proposals is to increase trust and confidence in policing among ethnic communities. We support that aim, and the important proposals intended to improve, for example, training of police, provision of family liaison officers and handling of victims and witnesses.
I have questions, however, on several issues. I believe that one of the most fundamental proposals is that there should be an increase in the number of men and women recruited into police from ethnic minorities. I was a member of a Select Committee of the House that proposed such an increase 25 years ago. Progress since then has been painfully slow, and we must improve it.
The Home Secretary said that he wants to have recruitment targets—to which, as it happens, I am not opposed in principle. However, it would be difficult to have targets in one sphere and for the Home Secretary simultaneously to say that overall police strength has absolutely nothing to do with him. We are talking about police effectiveness for all our people. The Home Secretary should note that most people in the United Kingdom want more police, not fewer, which perhaps indicates how the service is generally regarded.
On race relations legislation, I welcome the Home Secretary's recognition that race relations is an issue not only for police but for all other public services, such as


the civil service and the health service. The private sector has long been subject to current legislation, and it is difficult to appreciate the case in principle for exempting the public sector from it. However, will he say more about his plans and the evidence on the issue, including when he plans to introduce such legislation?
On double jeopardy, the report proposes that consideration should be given to permitting prosecution after acquittal when fresh evidence is presented. I believe that we should be cautious with the recommendation, and welcome the fact that he is referring it to the Law Commission. It is by no means certain that such a change would have helped in the Stephen Lawrence case. Before we make such a change, we should consider all the implications of doing so. I fear that there are too many examples of Governments—of either complexions—legislating in anger but living to regret it.
The crucial issue now is to take forward the process of reform. There have, regrettably, been some efforts to undermine the position of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; I deplore such efforts. I welcome unreservedly the Home Secretary's comments on the Commissioner's position. I believe that it would have been a disaster for the service if he had gone, and there seems to me to be nothing in the report that would have justified that action. I believe that he is the right man to start the process of reform—as I am sure that he will.
I agree with Sir William Macpherson that a new atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence must be created. The onus of beginning the process lies with police. Every individual must be treated with respect. However, that goes both ways. Although we unreservedly condemn racist language, we must not use language against police that is almost as extreme.
The best action that we can take is to do everything in our power to ensure that the events surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the investigation into it do not recur. Reform is necessary, and reform should be pursued. I emphasise that the Opposition will do everything to help in the reform process. What we will not do, however, is to support any generalised attack on police, who, in my view, remain one of the best services we have in this country, not one of the worst.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his support for Sir William Macpherson's report, and for his measured response. I agree entirely with his remarks about the definition used in the report of "institutional racism". It is important to draw public attention to the fact that this definition is very carefully crafted, and—not least because of that—I am glad that it is one that the Commissioner is happy to accept.
The most important point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the report is not saying that, because it finds institutional racism within the Metropolitan police service, other police services and other institutions, it is therefore saying that all police officers are racist. We know that, in almost every case, the reverse is true. However, the reverse can be true, but we can still have an institution that is displaying characteristics of institutional racism. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to targets. We can, I suggest, debate at a different time questions of the strength of the police service. Whatever the strength of

the service, there are bound to be retirements taking place—and, therefore, opportunities for recruitment. The Metropolitan police service is anticipating larger levels of retirement because of the bulge of recruits in the 1970s and early 1980s. Therefore, there is an opportunity for the Metropolitan police and other forces to give a real emphasis to the recruitment, retention and promotion of black and Asian officers.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put on record his support for my outline proposals on race relations legislation, and he asked when we can bring that forward. He knows what Leaders of the House are like as well as I do, but the intention is to do so as quickly as possible. However, in all seriousness, if cross-party co-operation were offered in both Houses, we could propose such legislation much more quickly.
On autrefois acquit, I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we must be careful. It is not an absolute principle at the moment. Following the recommendations of the 1993 royal commission, the law was changed in 1996 in terms of tampering by a jury. However, the report—in rather short order—proposes much more substantial change, and it is sensible to have that considered first by the Law Commission.

Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend's decision to set up the inquiry has been entirely vindicated by the outcome, and I welcome his robust approach to the recommendations. I agree that this is not a moment to declare open season on the police. However, it is a moment to make sure that some serious lessons are learned: first, that the public are entitled to expect value for the considerable sums of public money invested in the police; secondly, that when mistakes are made, they are owned up to and not covered up; thirdly, that where flagrant misbehaviour by police officers occurs, consequences should follow swiftly; and, finally, that the best way to end the canteen culture is to spend a little more time outside the canteen.

Mr. Straw: I think that that applies to Members of this House as well.
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and that of his colleagues. We would not have been able to bring forward the changes in respect of police discipline on 1 April this year without the Committee's important report. We are looking forward to the Committee's report on police training, which should provide an agenda for changing the way in which we train officers, both initially and during their service—not least in the nature of our multiracial society.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) talked about the past. He was right in saying that this country has higher standards of policing than many other European countries, and—as I implied in my statement—we have much higher standards in terms of race relations than some other European countries. However, one of the dangers of that recognition is that we can become complacent. If one looks at police training on race relations in the 1980s—following the Scarman report—one sees that people went through rote learning without understanding that what was required was significant cultural change right through the organisation, and an openness and accountability that the police service


did not enjoy at that stage. I hope that all the changes that we are making will help to change the environment in which police officers operate, for their benefit as well as for the benefit of the rest of society.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the report not tell an horrific story of incompetence, bad management and ignorant racial stereotypes, which together ensured that the perpetrators of this murder and of other violent racial attacks have escaped justice? The people who emerge with the most credit and dignity from the report are Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, whose terrible grief was compounded by the dreadful way in which they were treated. Few people can have achieved so much for race relations as that family have by the tremendous qualities that they have shown.
Is it not of great concern that the report concludes that throughout the United Kingdom there is a lack of trust between police and minority ethnic communities? Is not the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers a clear cause for concern? Does the Home Secretary agree that, although blanket condemnation of the police would be unfair and unproductive, there can be no excuse for the failings outlined in the report? Does he accept that calls for the Commissioner's resignation are a distraction from the real issue? The question for Sir Paul and other chief officers is whether they have, in the words of the report,
an unequivocal acceptance of the problems of institutional racism
and whether they are going to take decisive steps to deal with it.
Britain has always prided itself on policing by consent, but the report clearly shows a failure to establish that consent in minority communities. Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome his decision, for which we called, to extend the full force of the Race Relations Act to the police and all other public services? I wonder whether that includes the armed forces.
Will the Home Secretary implement in full other key recommendations in the report that represent a change in Government thinking? Recommendation 6 says that the London police authority should have the full powers available to other police authorities to hold the Metropolitan police accountable. That goes beyond what the Government are proposing. Recommendation 9 says
That a Freedom of Information Act should apply to all areas of policing, both operational and administrative, subject only to the `substantial harm' test".
Recommendation 58 says that serious complaints against the police should be investigated independently, not by another police force. Does the Home Secretary accept that, throughout society, there should be no compromise on racism and no hesitation in implementing the recommendations of this landmark report?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the report and, above all, for his comments about the Lawrence family. It is important to point out that the report says that the legislation on stop-and-search powers should not be changed, but goes on to make four recommendations about how the police should use those powers better so that there is not the gratuitous discrimination against black and Asian people that comes through graphically from the statistics. I shall deal with that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Race Relations Act would be extended to cover the armed forces. The answer is yes. Race relations legislation already applies to public service employees—so it already applies to soldiers—but not to those who receive the services of public institutions. Civilian services such as the police, the immigration service and the national health service are more often in contact with members of the public and British citizens than are the armed forces, although the armed forces also come into contact with the public from time to time.
The London police authority will have the same powers as police authorities outside. I shall set out our view on that in the detailed response that I provide before the full day's debate. That was one of the few recommendations for which I did not entirely understand the factual basis. We intend to give the police authority for London the same powers as other police authorities. The only difference will be that the Home Secretary will have some involvement in the national security functions of the MPS. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about freedom of information. The White Paper made it clear that the police would be subject to a freedom of information regime with a harm test, save in respect of the investigations of crimes. I ask him to await the publication of the draft Bill to see what we have proposed.
Recommendation 58 proposes an independent investigation of serious complaints, as the Home Affairs Committee proposed last year. I have always been sympathetic to that in principle. I said last year, and it stands, that we will wait to see how the initial changes bed down and consider the costs and consequences of setting up an independent system. Northern Ireland is there already. It will have an independent police ombudsman to investigate serious complaints from April, I believe, and we will take account of the experience there.

Mr. Clive Efford: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the call from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence for the inquiry to be set up, and I welcome his statement, and especially his commitment to a strategy for implementing the recommendations as soon as possible. I urge him to proceed without delay and enable the House to have a full debate on the issue. Does he agree that the recommendations represent the minimum that we should do to tackle the racism in our society and improve race relations, and that there is now an opportunity for every Member of Parliament to unite, go back to their communities and play a leading role in tackling that racism, in order to create an equal society in which people are not discriminated against on the basis of their skin colour?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We will produce that strategy as soon as possible. A fair amount of work has been done in the past week, since I received the report on Monday, nine days ago. He is right to say that every Member of Parliament has responsibilities. As I said, implementing the report is not somebody else's responsibility; it is the personal responsibility of each of us.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In a world in which all too many countries are blighted by


racial tension, we have long been proud of a tolerant attitude which is intermittently shattered. At the time of the Brixton riots 18 years ago, I was chairman of a juvenile court, and I remember the anger, despair and sense of horror at the events, and the anxiety that was spread throughout the country. I thank the Home Secretary for identifying the real progress made as a result of the Scarman report; but, once again, the anger and despair that have arisen from this case have permeated us all. I simply hope that we will be able to emulate the dignity and determination of the Lawrence parents in the search for results: not for a witch hunt and for scapegoats, but for practical change.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying that: we do not want scapegoats; we want action and change, and scapegoats will not help us to achieve either.
The interesting thing about the Scarman report, which I recently re-read, is that it was implemented more within the police service than outside, and therefore in something of a cultural vacuum. For that reason, much of the initial impetus behind the change that it should have initiated was lost. I hope that we can achieve a much wider agenda with the new report and that there will be constant monitoring, so that, in a year's time, when other issues have overtaken us, we have not forgotten that we must ensure continued progress if we are to avoid similar trauma in the years ahead.

Mr. Bernie Grant: First, I want to pay tribute to the Lawrence family, their friends and supporters, for the stalwart nature that they have shown. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on sticking to his promise, made before the general election, that we would have a public inquiry, but may I also warn him about the situation?
We have been here before. I remember being very optimistic in 1981, after the Scarman inquiry. We thought that it was a watershed and that things would change, but 18 years later—I have read both reports—we are back to almost the same recommendations that the Scarman inquiry made. This is a last chance for British society to tackle racism and to push for racial equality. The black community is giving British society a last chance. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that institutional racism occurs throughout society, the police have the power to remove one's freedom and we have to be especially careful about how they operate.
Although I agree with almost everything my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said today, I do not agree with his conclusion on the position of the Metropolitan police Commissioner. The black community does not have trust and confidence in Mr. Condon. I do not say that he should be sacked or that he should resign—I am not a bad-minded person. However, Mr. Condon should take early retirement, because we cannot move into a new phase with the same old faces.
We appear never to be able to tackle the supervising officers of the rank and file police men and women. My feedback from the street is that the attitudes of rank and file police officers have changed dramatically, probably

because of graduate recruitment and race relations training. However, the attitudes of desk sergeants and those behind them remain the same. Those are the attitudes that permit institutionalised racism. We have to begin to call to account the actions of some of those detectives, superintendents, chief superintendents and police commissioners. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that question, because the black community is watching closely what happens to those posts. I shall leave the rest of my observations to the debate.

Mr. Straw: May I first say how delighted I am to see my hon. Friend back in his place in the House after a period of illness?
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to take the chance that we have been given. The difference with 18 years ago and the Scarman report is that many white people thought then that the answer to the problem of racial prejudice and discrimination was to treat everybody the same. The suggestion was that all one had to do was to be colour-blind. We now know that the answer is not about treating everybody the same, but about treating everybody equally, including respect for and recognition of people's diversity and different needs. That is one of the most profound changes that we must introduce.
In some respects, I am optimistic, and I wish to pick up my hon. Friend's point about the change in the attitudes of police officers. In my view, attitudes have changed further in the Metropolitan police than in many provincial forces and that fact will emerge in the report of the inspectorate, which I will publish next Monday. I am sorry, but I disagree with my hon. Friend about the attitudes of officers at more senior levels. These days, many such officers are profoundly committed to an agenda of change and to making their forces anti-racist and agents for driving out racism in our society.
My hon. Friend also raised the position of the Commissioner, and I am sorry to say that I disagree with him on that point, too. I do not believe that it would have been justified or appropriate to ask the Commissioner to resign. He is in a position to take forward the recommendations. He has accepted the findings of the report; its conclusions, including those that relate to him; and the definition of institutional racism, including as it applies to the Metropolitan police. As a result not least of his personal commitment, and of the Lawrence inquiry, huge change has already been made in the Metropolitan police service. That is evident and, as I said in my statement, I believe that he is the man to take the programme forward. He will do so over the 10 months that remain of his normal period of office, which in any event comes to an end early next year.

Several hon. Members: rose
—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I urge hon. Members to reserve their comments for the debate that has been announced and that will take place soon? I can call only one or two other hon. Members, as I have the rest of the day's business to safeguard, and I hope that hon. Members will ask brief questions.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Home Secretary agree that we must be very careful about how


we define the terms and phrases that we use? The Oxford English dictionary defines "racism" as
a belief in the superiority of a particular race … prejudice based on this belief'
and as
antagonism towards other races.
Yet today, we seem to have moved to a definition of institutional racism that can involve accidental conduct whose consequences are not intended. Does the Home Secretary recognise that difficulty with definitions? Does he agree that, according to the first definition that I gave, 99 per cent. of London's police pass the test with flying colours?

Mr. Straw: One of the reasons why we have arranged a full day's debate in due course is to ensure that hon. Members have the time to read the report. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the good debate in chapter 6 of the report, which explains why the Committee came to the view that its definition of institutional racism was the appropriate one.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, pay tribute to the Lawrence family and to the Home Secretary. The report is a shocking document. It reflects tragically on the vulnerability of the black and Asian community, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend expects its recommendations to be implemented in full. I am proud to live in a multiracial country, and to represent a multiracial constituency. However, I am desperately disappointed that our institutions are not multiracial.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals about targets, but I would like them to be extended to the civil service as well. Will he say what he proposes to do with those chief constables and others who refuse to meet those targets?

Mr. Straw: We have not got there yet. I think that they will meet their targets and that there is wide recognition of the importance of improving the number of ethnic minority officers in the police service. I am grateful for the fact that the policy has the backing in principle of Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Members. It enjoys a broad consensus, and I expect and believe that every chief constable—and every police authority member—will take it on. If not, I may have something to say.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said. People in this country who want to approach their Member of Parliament about racism or bad treatment will now know that every hon. Member will act as the hon. Gentleman has acted.
In addition, I welcome the support that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has given the Home Secretary on the approach to the inquiry. May I ask the Home Secretary to recall that some people involved in the tragedy seldom get remembered? For example, Duwayne Brooks had to suffer the tragedy of watching his friend get stabbed: much of the media coverage devoted to him has been adverse, and quite wrongly so. Moreover, no one has to suffer the loss of a brother to understand what Stephen's brother and sister, Stuart and Georgina, felt when Stephen was killed.
Finally, will the Home Secretary try to resurrect a report for which Sir Michael Quinlan at the then Department of Employment asked in about 1986 from the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service? That report, which attracted little attention outside the Department, examined the cultural and behavioural problems associated with employment, even in Government Departments. That report deserves to be updated, and spread to other Departments.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the many human tragedies that are part of the dreadful story arising from Stephen Lawrence's murder.
As for the report, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tip, and we shall dig out that 1986 Department of Employment report. A good deal of work is going on already, but it is interesting how often Government Departments, like other bodies, tend to reinvent the wheel. It might be worth discovering whether it has been invented already.

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know that his tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence is shared by me and by the people of south-east London. Does he accept that there will be a great sense of relief among my constituents—one third of whom are black—that institutional racism in the Metropolitan police has at last been accepted by the House, and that he has undertaken to take positive action as a consequence? I welcome the action that he will taking in putting Her Majesty's inspectors into the Met to examine unsolved deaths and murders, and the reviews of such cases. Can he confirm that the inspection will include the review undertaken at my request into the deaths of 13 young people in the New Cross fire in 1981?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend referred to my acceptance, and that of the House, of the concept of institutional racism as defined by the inquiry. I should make it clear that the definition is also accepted by the Commissioner, who has issued a statement today, saying:
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon has accepted part one of the Macpherson inquiry report and its proposed new and demanding definition of institutional racism for all public institutions.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I cannot say without notice whether the inspection of the Metropolitan police will include a review of the 13 young people's case, but I shall write to her on that.

Mr. David Tredinnick: May I refer the Home Secretary to recommendation 58 for a fully independent investigation of complaints against the police? May I remind him that many of those who gave evidence to the Scarman inquiry into the Brixton riots argued strongly for an independent inquiry then? The replacement of the old Police Complaints Board with the Police Complaints Authority, which is semi-independent, has not won sufficient confidence. Does the Home Secretary not believe that the independent investigation of serious complaints should be at the top of the agenda, rather than some way down it, as he has suggested it is?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right. He might have mentioned that I produced a ten-minute Bill in 1981, which proposed an independent police complaints


authority, an idea to which I am still sympathetic. I have made my position clear. We have taken forward many of the recommendations of the Select Committee. This is a piece of unfinished business, and it is important that we get it right. If broad agreement is emerging among the political parties in the House about the future structure of an independent police complaints investigative body, pursuing the policy will be made much easier.

Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the inquiry in the first place. Does he agree that the report lays on all of us both a duty and an opportunity to ensure that employment in, contact with or use of our public services should not depend on conformity to a white, male culture? Does he accept that policing in multicultural areas such as my constituency requires the police to take an open attitude, and to be in contact with, and have the confidence of, local groups? May I commend to him the work done at Trinity Road police station, which works with the Bristol race equality council against racist incidents? May I suggest that, as part of their training, every police officer should be required to read "Faces of Britain: A Cultural Guide", a booklet produced by that police station?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has just given me a quick briefing on the value of the work done at Trinity Road police station, and he will visit it shortly. A great error was committed 15 to 20 years ago when people thought that they had to bother about anti-racist policies only in areas in which black and Asian people lived in any numbers. In fact, we need to bother more about anti-racist policies in areas that are all white. I do not want the police service to get the idea that, just because an area is predominantly white, they do not need to recruit black and Asian officers. Regardless of whether areas are mainly white or not, officers will, in the course of their careers, come in contact with black and Asian people. In any event, we must ensure that officers of the law treat people equally, regardless of the colour of their skin, race or creed.

Kosovo

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement on the Kosovo talks.
In my statement three weeks ago, I reported that the Contact Group had agreed to summon both sides to negotiations for a political settlement on the basis of the documents tabled by that group. Both sides responded to that summons and took part in peace talks held until yesterday at Rambouillet. As co-chair of the talks, the United Kingdom was fully engaged in brokering agreement between the two parties, and the House will wish to recognise the immense effort put in by officials, some of whom have worked without break and occasionally without sleep. I record the appreciation of all the British team for the close co-operation of France, both as co-chair and as host of the talks.
At the outset, both parties to the talks had a large number of reservations about the Contact Group's proposals for the constitution of a self-governing Kosovo. The great majority of them were resolved. However, the Yugoslav delegation still has some difficulties, such as the limited role of the Serbian courts; and the Albanian side is still particularly concerned about the absence of a commitment to a referendum on independence at the end of the three-year period. Those problems remain. Nevertheless, we obtained consensus from both sides for a democratic, self-governing Kosovo, and agreement to the main elements in the detailed texts on its constitution.
Those texts provide Kosovo with its own assembly, constitution, president, Government, taxes, laws, and police and security. They provide a sweeping measure of autonomy for Kosovo, including the right to conduct foreign relations in respect of the areas within the competence of the Kosovar assembly. The constitution also provides full protection for the national communities within Kosovo, including the right of both Serb and Albanian communities to have representative bodies to protect and promote their respective languages, cultures, religions and educational curriculums.
There was broad agreement on both sides regarding a major international presence in support of the political settlement. Elections to the assembly, local communes and community bodies are to be supervised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both parties agreed to the appointment of an international ombudsman to monitor human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the texts provide for the European Commission to take the lead role in co-ordinating the economic reconstruction of Kosovo.
The most difficult issue was the proposal for an international military presence in Kosovo. The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept that the presence of foreign troops was consistent with Yugoslav national sovereignty. There were also serious difficulties on the Albanian side—particularly among representatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army, who found it hard to accept that a condition of an international military force must be that they demilitarise and surrender their weapons.
Throughout the talks, I made it clear that Britain was willing to provide ground troops to underpin the interim settlement, but that there could be no question of us or


our allies doing so without a clear commitment to such a ceasefire and to the withdrawal or disarmament on both sides that is necessary to make it a reality.
Both parties agreed to meet again on 15 March to discuss all aspects of the implementation of the new constitution of Kosovo, including the civilian and military international presence. My colleague Hubert Védrine and I are considering how we can use the interval between now and then to convince the wider public in Kosovo and Serbia that the outcome is a good bargain for both, and the best deal that they will have to end the conflict.
I regret to inform the House that violent conflict continues in Kosovo. On Monday, there was fighting near Vucitrn. Yesterday, there was further fighting at Bukos, in which we know that at least one Serb was killed and five were injured. We do not yet have figures for casualties on the Albanian side. Today, there has been further fighting near Suva Reka.
Last night, Javier Solana confirmed that NATO expects both sides to respect the ceasefire and remains ready to use whatever means are necessary in support of it. Yesterday, all the NATO members of the Contact Group repeated their support for decisive NATO action if Belgrade makes a disproportionate response or takes violent reprisals against the civilian population. We also hold the Kosovo Liberation Army responsible for its part in maintaining a ceasefire. Both sides should use the next three weeks to build on the new agreement for peace, not to break down the existing agreement for a ceasefire.
When I last spoke to the House on this issue, I ended by saying that I could not confirm that the talks that we were seeking would take place, nor guarantee that they would succeed. We were successful in getting both sides to take part in the talks. As a result, we have created a peace process, and the end of the Rambouillet talks is not the end of that process but only the conclusion of its first phase. Both sides have committed themselves to taking part in its next phase.
I cannot report to the House that we have yet reached complete agreement to the Contact Group texts, but we have secured agreement to the overwhelming majority of them. That result proves that we were right to try for peace by summoning the talks, but also demonstrates the extra mile we still have to travel. I can assure the House that we will maintain our pressure on both sides to end the conflict through negotiations.
Neither side is going to end this conflict through military action. Neither side can gain from prolonging it. The longer Belgrade continues to try to resolve the conflict by military repression, the more difficult any final outcome that stops short of independence for Kosovo is made. The longer the Kosovo Liberation Army continues to provoke conflict, the more difficult it makes it for the international community to stop the bloodshed among its people.
Both sides have recognised the value of the Contact Group proposals. I urge them now to work with us in implementing them, and to turn their commitments on paper into reality on the ground: the reality of a Kosovo free from fear and governed by free elections.

Mr. John Maples: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no agreement has been reached or signed at Rambouillet, and that the sticking points were Kosovo's insistence on a referendum on

its future and Serbia's refusal to allow a NATO peacekeeping force on Kosovan territory? Both sides have refused to give way on those points and appear unlikely to do so. The Kosovo Albanians would rather fight than give up the prospect of independence and Serbia would—apparently—rather be bombed than have NATO troops on its territory. Both calculate that this would enhance their positions.
As I understand it, the strategy was to get the Kosovo Albanians on side quickly and then threaten the Serbs, but it fell apart early and proved to be misconceived. Why was there such a miscalculation? Why was the Kosovo Albanian position not better understood in advance? That was the fundamental fault. The Foreign Secretary had a carrot for the Kosovo Albanians and no stick, and a stick for Milosevic but no carrot. This obvious flaw in his strategy led to Milosevic being allowed off the hook.
Now we are to have a three-week delay. All hon. Members hope that things will work on 15 March, but each delegation is probably going to spend the three-week hiatus talking to its hardliners, seeking unity not behind an agreement but behind sticking points to strengthen its negotiating position. There is a danger that the situation on the ground will deteriorate by 15 March. It is happening already and will inflame both sides.
Why was the Rambouillet format chosen for the talks when the Dayton model—shut all the parties away in a remote, unattractive location without access to press or home capitals, with all the principals present, and refuse to let them go until an agreement has been reached—was known and successful? [Interruption.] Well, it worked and this has not. Why choose a French chateau just outside Paris with free access to the media and perpetual contact with delegations' capitals? All the principals were at Dayton, including Milosevic and Holbrooke. The key character, Milosevic, was missing at Rambouillet. Of course, Holbrooke was at Dayton, where having one's arm twisted by him was pretty effective. Apparently, it is not quite as effective when done by the Foreign Secretary.
There were the additional mistakes of for ever setting deadlines, and extending them, and having a Contact Group of five nations that did not agree among themselves. The Contact Group had no real coercive threat, and Russia disagreed with the imposition of what threat there was. The only real coercion was from the United States, which had to try to rescue the process. Surely the lesson is that only the United States is a credible threat—at least that is what Milosevic seems to think.
I have some questions, and I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary addressed them. The Rambouillet process was supposed to last two weeks. Despite extensions, it has failed in its objective. In the Foreign Secretary's words, the talks have become "a process". I hope that that process will succeed on 15 March, although we have serious doubts. What will the Foreign Secretary do if the Kosovo Albanians refuse to sign without a commitment to a referendum? What will he do if the Kosovo Albanians agree, but Milosevic refuses to have a NATO force? Would we bomb Serbia, or would the Foreign Secretary agree to any other force? If bombing were to start, how could he guarantee the safety of OSCE monitors? Does Russia still wholly oppose a NATO force?
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that NATO will take action if Belgrade makes a disproportionate response, or instigates violent reprisals. What exactly does that mean? If the process fails, can he absolutely and unconditionally guarantee that the very large NATO army in Macedonia will not be used except under the terms of a peace agreement, and to help to implement that agreement?
Does the Foreign Secretary think that the Rambouillet process has enhanced Milosevic's respect for NATO? Does he think that Britain's credibility in the world has been enhanced by his conduct of the process? Does he think that Milosevic regards him personally with more fear and respect than before Rambouillet? The House knows the answers to these questions. We have witnessed all the Foreign Secretary's final warnings, all the unfulfilled expectations that he has aroused, his summonses of the parties, and the posturing incompetence with which these matters have been handled. Unfortunately, the people of Kosovo are also only too aware of the consequences.

Mr. Cook: Let us begin with the questions for which the hon. Gentleman managed to find time in his little speech. First, if there is any question of bombing, the monitors will be withdrawn. Secondly, it is nonnegotiable for us that any force to which we commit British forces must have a tried, trusted and tested command structure. For us, that means a NATO command structure.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Russia continues to oppose a NATO force. Russia's position throughout has been that it is willing to take part in a military presence if it is invited by Belgrade. He asked exactly when we would commence bombing Belgrade. I cannot think of anything more helpful to Milosevic than to spell out exactly when we might do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this process has increased respect for Britain and the conduct of its foreign policy. I reported only on Sunday to all European Union Foreign Ministers, all of whom are in support of the Rambouillet process, and all of whom understand both the effort that went into it and the difficulty of securing success.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's preamble. Remote though the prospect is at present that he will find himself in government, I am always tempted by the thought of his having two weeks in office, just to discover the reality of the problems of carrying out international negotiations. What he described was pure fantasy. Richard Holbrooke has already had a go at trying to twist arms. He produced the Holbrooke package in October, which we welcomed and supported. Since then, we have been seeking to build on it, and to improve it by working on areas that were missing from it, especially the question of the guarantee for the implementation of an agreement.
As far as I could tell from the hon. Gentleman's contrast of Rambouillet and Dayton, the only difference that he found was that Rambouillet was attractive and Dayton was certainly unattractive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what happened at Dayton came as a result of several months of bombing in Serbia and the Serbian side then recognising that, for them, the military conflict

was over. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to follow a model in which we achieve peace only after several months of bombing, I have to tell him that at present there are not many takers among his allies.
No, we have not let Milosevic off the hook and we have not let the KLA off the hook. Both are now confronted with having to come up to scratch on the agreement that they have made. Yes, there was an agreement at Rambouillet. That agreement was not perfect or complete—that is in the nature of international negotiation. However, as the Serbian side acknowledged, there was major progress towards substantial autonomy for Kosovo and, for the Kosovar side, an agreement that it could accept subject to consultation.
That justifies our efforts at Rambouillet; indeed, there was greater agreement than I predicted when we started. I did not predict that the process would be easy or end in triumph; I predicted that it would be difficult and that we would not necessarily get agreement. We have done so, and it would be helpful in pushing Milosevic and the KLA into abiding by that agreement if the hon. Gentleman recognised what had been achieved.

Mr. Donald Anderson: After that rather sour performance from the Opposition Front Bench, would not the House have been better served by the lofty statesmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? The better view is surely: so far, so good. The agreement is not ideal, but it is far better than one might have hoped at the start of the process, and all involved must receive our congratulations on stopping something worse.
Is my right hon. Friend confident that the will exists on both sides of the conflict, among the Kosovar Albanians and the Yugoslavs, to prevent a substantial deterioration on the ground before 15 March? Did he get that message from the representatives at Rambouillet? What role is envisaged for the OSCE monitors after the eventual agreement?

Mr. Cook: It is recognised in the text that there will be a strong role for the Kosovo verification mission, particularly its head, as we implement the new constitution for Kosovo provided for by the documents. Indeed, the head of the mission will be responsible for nearly all aspects of civilian and political construction in securing agreement to them.
The verification mission continues to do vital work in seeking to make sure that the ceasefire is maintained, and by and large is successful in doing so where it is present. I regret that there are only 1,200 members of what should be a team of 2,000. One of the points that I agreed with my colleagues at the close of the talks is that we must consider how we can increase the pace at which we fill those remaining places.
My hon. Friend asked a grave question that goes to the heart of the conflict that we face in Kosovo. I have to tell the House that I did not receive assurances that I would regard with confidence about future conduct in the conflict. Both sides have to recognise their responsibility and they have to recognise that neither of them can win by conflict. It is in their interests to agree to the process that we have started and to accept the constitutional and political settlement on offer.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: ): I begin by acknowledging and applauding the efforts of officials and


the Foreign Secretary, but I hope that he will forgive me if I strike a more pessimistic note than that contained in his statement.
Must we not properly acknowledge that the outcome of Rambouillet is inconclusive—we have only a provisional agreement on political structures, we have no agreement on the peacekeeping force and we have no peace in Kosovo, as events of the past 72 hours have eloquently demonstrated? Is not the position further complicated by the power struggle taking place within the KLA and the risks of provocation and retaliation to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his statement? Realistically, what physical steps can we take to prevent deterioration in Kosovo between now and 15 March?

Mr. Cook: I have been clear that the agreement is not a complete agreement—indeed, it is a partial agreement. However, I believe that that is better than no agreement at all. We did make progress at Rambouillet, but I am not pretending to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or to the House that we have completed that task.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to stress the importance of the process being able to continue when we meet on 15 March, in order to achieve an observance of what is now a grumbling ceasefire, without escalation. He asks how we can secure that. The first barrier to escalation is the verification mission. We are looking at how we can complete its numbers and make sure that it is brought up to full strength.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second question concerned what other measures would then be available to us. The best measure that we have to secure compliance from Belgrade is to make it clear to Belgrade, as I have already done, that the NATO planes remain on alert, and that the order for Javier Solana to authorise their use remains in force. We are all clear within NATO that, in the event of disproportionate military action by Belgrade—if there was any repeat of the atrocities that have taken place in the past—that authorisation is available and could be used in those circumstances.
The Kosovo Liberation Army must also accept its share of responsibility for maintaining the ceasefire. Too often in the past, action has been initiated from the Kosovo Liberation side. We have made it plain to the Kosovo Liberation Army that we are well aware of the way in which it has broken the ceasefire. We will not allow ourselves to be trapped into ending up as the KLA's air force, as a result of provocation that it initiated.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that for many people, including myself, the one outcome from the Rambouillet talks is that bombing has not begun? The most terrifying argument put from both sides of the House at one stage was that the credibility of NATO would be the justification for bombing.
Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that, whatever the outcome may be, if, without the authority of the Security Council, the United States and Britain or other countries bomb or enter a sovereign state without the consent of that state, that will be a breach of international law? If, as he said, quite rightly, the problem inside Yugoslavia cannot be solved by conflict, it certainly cannot be solved by the conflict being entered by people pretending to be the world's policemen.
Will the Foreign Secretary further consider that, when one thinks of the problems affecting minorities such as the Kurds, the Palestinians and the people of East Timor, the position occupied by the American and British Governments is not really very credible?

Mr. Cook: There is no question of our entering Kosovo with military force in circumstances in which there is no peace agreement to police. We have made that clear repeatedly. We do not intend to fight our way into Kosovo. Unless we were clear about what we were going to do there by way of peace settlement, such an undertaking would be pointless.
Secondly, with reference to the Security Council, there was broad agreement at Rambouillet among all the members of the Contact Group that, in the event of a settlement, we would invite the Security Council to approve and endorse the settlement.
In the event that we are faced again with a humanitarian crisis as a result of excessive military repression in Kosovo—if, once again, we are faced with tens of thousands of refugees on the hillsides, or if, once again, we are faced with innocent civilians being executed at close range, with no suggestion that that was happening in fighting—I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's constituents or those of any other hon. Member would understand it if we did not respond.

Sir Peter Emery: The Foreign Secretary must know that all of us hope that on 15 March solutions can be found and we can go forward without resorting to bombing. If that is the case, all sides will deserve to be congratulated.
Can the Foreign Secretary say what will happen after the three-year period? Is there to be Serbian law in Kosovo? Is there to be an entire new structure of law? What is the position with regard to education? How will that be dealt with, if Kosovo is given a measure of independence? Only if such matters are dealt with satisfactorily will there be a long-term solution of the problem.

Mr. Cook: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's questions on the issue of law is that it would be for the Kosovo assembly to apply the laws of Kosovo as they are at present, or to amend them as it chooses. The document throughout is carefully balanced and calibrated to respect the rights and aspirations of the other communities of Kosovo, particularly the Serb community, which is why it provides for the right of appeal to the Serb courts for representatives of the Serb community. One issue that we have been looking at lately is the right of Serb judges to take part in the Kosovo courts.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of education. That, too, would be a matter for the representative bodies of the national communities, both Serb and Albanian, who would have control over the curriculum, cultural questions, religion and matters that trench closely on their different approaches to education. However, education would be a devolved competence of the Kosovo assembly.
As I hope my remarks have shown, enormous ingenuity and thought have gone into providing for Kosovo maximum self-government of a sweeping character, while ensuring that the rights, privileges and customs of Kosovo's other communities are fully protected.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's even-handed and balanced assessment of the situation in Kosovo. He must deal not only with two warring parties but with the carping critics in the House and with the difficulty of Europe influencing a United States Administration who sometimes find it too easy to look for quick-fix air strike solutions to complex problems. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Europeans will continue to work patiently and assiduously for a political outcome of the conflict and do their best to ensure that the United States follows that process over the next few weeks?

Mr. Cook: In response to my hon. Friend's observations, I recall that throughout the period when we were in opposition, whenever the then Government sought to achieve a peace initiative we did not regard it as our function to score party political points when they responded to the House.

Mr. Maples: That is silly.

Mr. Cook: I should have thought that a more serious approach to this matter would be to regard it as a grave international crisis, not a matter for partisan politics.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no quick-fix solution to the problem. Nevertheless, I would counsel him against falling into a trap similar to the one that the Opposition spokesman fell into in suggesting a clear break between Europe and the United States. We shall solve this problem only if Europe and the United States work closely together, as we have over the past three days at Rambouillet.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: It is widely reported that relations between Serbia and Montenegro have deteriorated sharply in recent months. The Montenegrin authorities have said that they will refuse the Yugoslav army access to their territory. Have NATO powers received such representations about the use of force on their territory from the Montenegrins? Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that, for good or ill, a likely by-product of the initiative of the past few weeks is the destabilisation of former Yugoslavia? In the light of the initiative, is it feasible in the long term that Montenegro can remain part of the Yugoslav federal republic?

Mr. Cook: I met President Djukanovic of Montenegro last week when we had a full discussion lasting an hour and a half about both the current situation in Kosovo and the tensions within the federal republic. I have assured President Djukanovic of the full support of Britain and the west for his measures to achieve a more open market economy and society within Montenegro—measures that we supported financially during the British presidency of the European Union. I have also assured him that our quarrel is with Belgrade and that we shall do all that we

can to ensure that our actions in respect of Belgrade are not applied in relation to Montenegro. He has been a valuable and supportive critic of Belgrade's role in so many of the actions that have led to the present crisis in Kosovo and elsewhere. I very much hope that we shall be able to support him whenever possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary referred to what the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would think. On Saturday night, I was talking to some of the Foreign Secretary's constituents and mine—we share the same local authority—and some mutual old friends of ours. They are serious people and political associates of 30 years, and they are deeply concerned about the whole question of bombing and the effect that it has.
Is not the truth that, when people are bombed, they become far more resistant to a solution than if they had not been bombed? May I gently ask my colleagues on the Front Bench whether they understand, because they are of a younger generation, the effect of bombing on people? The Secretary of State for Defence knows that I sent his office an obituary of a distinguished group captain, who said that, during the war, Hitler had ordered a fortnight's leave for any German—in the Afrika Korps or on the Russian front—whose house had been bombed. Why? Because they would return and, with greater determination than ever before, fight for the cause, which we may think is entirely wrong. On the whole question of bombing, cannot the Government have a think about the effect of it?

Mr. Cook: I am not sure to what extent my hon. Friend's question arises from the content of my statement, because I am here to discuss a peace process that we started to try to achieve an end to the conflict in Kosovo. It was not the objective of Rambouillet or of the peace process to embark on a bombing campaign, but I have said, and I repeat again, that there should be no misunderstanding in Belgrade that the authorisation for action by NATO remains fully in place.

Mr. Dalyell: Not by the Russians.

Mr. Cook: They are not members of NATO and we would not allow them to have a veto on what we were to decide within NATO.
I say to my hon. Friend that the issue in Kosovo is not bombing by Britain or by any other member state of NATO, but the fact that so many of the villages of Kosovo have been demolished by artillery and mortar fire by Serb forces, and so many civilians in Kosovo have been shot and made homeless; and that 200,000 people are still displaced in Kosovo and elsewhere in the region as a result of the fighting. In order to stop that, we went to Rambouillet, and, in order to prevent further serious escalation of the violence, we are ready to take action, if it is required.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary address the problems that will arise if his strategy is successful? First, British forces will have to be deployed to support any agreement. He has already alluded to the fact that only 1,200 of the 2,000 monitors have been forthcoming. The United Kingdom has offered 8,000—the largest share—for the force for Kosovo, but


such a deployment could be maintained for only six months before it caused serious problems of overstretch for the Army. The clock is already ticking, because those people are preparing for that operation. How will we ensure that, when we want to reduce the British contingent, others will take its place to safeguard the agreement?
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary address the problem of what will happen in three years' time if we force the Kosovars into the agreement and to withdraw their insistence on the right of self-determination at some stage in the process? Will we find ourselves doing Serbia's dirty work in preventing the Kosovars from exercising a democratic freedom that, for example, we in the United Kingdom would be happy for the people of Scotland to express?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's last point is flatly in conflict with the agreed strategy of all members of the Contact Group and throughout the wider international community, which is that we will support a democratic, self-governing Kosovo. We will create the structures for a three-year interim accord, in order that that can take place. There is no commitment in the international community to the independence of Kosovo. We are not proposing, therefore, to have an independent Kosovo at the end of that time, but we will go in only if the Kosovars also accept a ceasefire, also accept the interim accord and also accept that they have to surrender their weapons.
On the issue of overstretch, the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which would go in as the headquarters of the operation, would go in on the standard basis that it would be providing the headquarters for six months. We would expect the alliance to carry through its standard procedures to make sure that there was a permanent headquarters at the end of those six months, and that we could withdraw the ARRC headquarters.
I will not deny that there would be considerable strain on the British Army as a result of this deployment. That strain would be a lot less if the British Army had not been cut in real terms by one third under the previous Administration, when he advised the Ministry of Defence.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall not comment for the moment on the murderous conduct of the Serbs, but is not the belligerent intransigence of elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of those fascist mobsters in the IRA? Should not the KLA's friends in the

region urge its members to play the long game? They have been offered a remarkable degree of autonomy, and autonomy must precede independence.

Mr. Cook: I am not sure that those friends whom the KLA has are necessarily seeking to benefit from a cessation of the conflict, but I agree with my hon. Friend's judgment about the value, on balance, to the people of Kosovo. The settlement would offer an end to the bloodshed and repression. It would mark the start of democracy and freedom of expression, and would create self-governing institutions that could run Kosovo's affairs.
At the end of the conference, we engaged in much discussion about whether there should be a referendum on independence in three years' time. I suspect that, given their present position, if the people of Kosovo were offered a referendum now on whether to accept the political settlement, the result would be an overwhelming yes.

Mr. Mike Hancock: On behalf of all whom I represent, I wish the Foreign Secretary and everyone else involved well in their attempts to secure a settlement on 15 March, and thank the right hon. Gentleman for the efforts that he has already made.
Given that nearly 40 per cent. of the KLA's troops now come from outside Kosovo, what steps is the international community taking to ensure that, when those fighters return to Albania or Macedonia, they do not take the conflict back with them? What will the international community do to prop up Albania's economy so that such people return with more than the inspiration to fight another war there, and to create a decent environment for them in their own country?

Mr. Cook: Our evidence suggests that, by and large, the Macedonian Government—and, indeed, the Albanian population in Macedonia—have remained distant from the conflict in Kosovo. Indeed, Macedonia is playing host to a substantial build-up of NATO forces, and we welcome its close co-operation.
Northern Albania is more or less outside the rule of law and the remit of the capital of Albania. We have offered the Albanian Government support to try to improve the situation—in particular, we have offered help with the training of the local police force—and we shall continue that work; but, given the present conditions in northern Albania, it has proved well nigh impossible to prevent extra troops and weapons from crossing the border.

Sierra Leone

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement arising from my parliamentary answer of yesterday on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone.
Yesterday, I set out the circumstances in which the Foreign Office received a draft of that report. In view of comments made subsequently by a number of hon. Members, I assure the House that neither the Foreign Office nor Ministers took any action on that draft. We did not in any way seek to interfere with the work of the Committee, or to offer comments on the draft. Indeed, the record shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) did not table any amendments to the draft. Nor did we publish or disclose any part of the draft to the media or to anyone else. I am therefore confident that neither I nor anyone else at the Foreign Office has committed any impropriety on the basis of the draft, or broken any of the rules of procedure set out in Erskine May; but, Madam Speaker, I shall of course accept any future ruling which you or the relevant Committees may give on the matter.
In the meantime, I remind the House that I gave the Select Committee unprecedented access to Foreign Office documents and telegrams. Indeed, its report acknowledges that the access that it obtained was a quantum leap in openness with Select Committees. I did not obstruct or impede the work of the Committee; I did not interfere with the deliberations of the Committee; and I have fully respected the role of scrutiny of both the Committee and the Chamber.

Sir George Young: No one doubts that the Foreign Secretary has pressing matters before him, on which he has made a statement, but the issues that we are now discussing relate to events in his office in January and early February this year.
Should the Foreign Secretary not have prefaced his statement with an apology to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on behalf of the Government, for rubbishing its report in advance of publication, using a document that he and his colleagues knew that they should never have received?
May I ask the Foreign Secretary some specific questions? When did he first see the draft, and did he discuss it with any of his ministerial colleagues or officials? What action did he take to report the leak? Did he show the document to anyone else and, if so, to whom?
Did the Foreign Secretary tell the Chairman of the Select Committee that his office had received a leaked copy of the draft and, if not, why not? Did the Foreign Secretary, his Parliamentary Private Secretary or anyone in his office pass copies to, or discuss the leaked document or subsequent leaked conclusions with No. 10 and the Prime Minister's Office?
We now know who leaked a copy of the draft report in January, but can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how he subsequently became aware of "certain key conclusions", of which he made no mention in his statement, but which were referred to in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham

(Mrs. Gillan) yesterday? Can he say whether either document was solicited by anyone in his Department or his PPS? What action did he take to report the second leak? Did he initiate any action as a result of the second leak?
When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—replied on 16 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham by saying that copies of the report were collected on 9 February, did he know that the Foreign Secretary had received a copy of the draft in January, and that he had received a subsequent leak of certain key conclusions before the report was published?
If the Minister of State did not know, does that not reveal a breathtaking lack of liaison between two senior Ministers? If he did know, was his reply not calculated to give the House the wrong impression? If the House was knowingly misinformed, should the Minister concerned not immediately resign?
How does the Foreign Secretary's dismissive treatment of the leak square with the high moral tone that has been adopted by the Home Secretary and No. 10 about leaks over the past few days? Does not the whole sorry episode confirm all the criticisms of the entire handling of the Sierra Leone affair by Ministers, and reveal that the Government have been caught red-handed doing what we all know they have been doing since they were elected—treating the House with contempt?

Mr. Cook: First, as a number of Conservative Members have asked where the Minister of State is, I can tell the House that he is currently going around all the countries that are party to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, trying to achieve a ceasefire. I would have thought that he would have the good wishes and support of hon. Members on both sides of House in that effort.
Secondly, I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman. There was no briefing—no leak to the press in advance of publication by the Foreign Office or any Minister in the Foreign Office. There were two leaks published in the press on the Friday and Saturday before publication. They were both hostile to Ministers in the Foreign Office. They plainly came from someone in or around the Select Committee, but they did not come from the Foreign Office.
The right hon. Gentleman asks when I saw the document. I understand that the draft was received in the second week of January. I discussed it only with the permanent secretary. We did not disclose it to No. 10 or to anyone else.
On the issue of the key conclusions, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has already indicated to the Select Committee the circumstances in which he informed a special adviser in my Department of the key conclusions of the final report.
The Minister of State saw the same draft that I saw, but his answer was an accurate, factual and correct answer to the question that he was asked. The right hon. Gentleman appears to wish that the Minister of State had answered a different question from the one he was asked. That is a matter for which those who asked the question have to take responsibility, not those who answered it.
Of course I understand that it is proper for the House to discuss these matters and for the right hon. Gentleman to raise them, but his indignation would carry more conviction if he were to assure the House that such an event never happened when he was in office during the period of the previous Government.

Mr. Donald Anderson: May I on behalf of the Select Committee give you, Madam Speaker, and the House an undertaking that, in this matter, the Foreign Affairs Committee will follow to the letter the procedure that is set out in "Erskine May"? The Committee has agreed—I have already, on behalf of the Committee, written to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—that the matter will be discussed by the Liaison Committee on Thursday this week. I anticipate that there will be then be a reply to the Committee, which, if it is so minded, will then make a special report to the House. It will then be for the House, not for the Committee or the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, to decide what future steps, if any, to take. The role of the Committee will cease because it is a House of Commons matter.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the way in which the Select Committee will proceed with the matter. I am absolutely clear that I can robustly defend my conduct and that of my officials, in that we have at no stage committed any impropriety under the provision of "Erskine May" that we should not obstruct or impede the work of a Select Committee. We plainly have not done so.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has a long interest in foreign affairs, particularly the middle east. It is a matter of great personal regret to me that he should have found himself compelled to resign from the Select Committee.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary a number of specific questions? To whom was the envelope containing the document addressed? By whom was the envelope received? Is there a system in his Department by means of which any document received is registered? Was that document registered as having been received in his Department, and is there an entry in the appropriate document to vouch that?
Was the document placed in the red box of any Minister? Did the person who received the document understand the rules relating to Select Committee reports? If he or she did, why was not the document simply sent back?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a number of questions. I cannot say whether the document was registered, but I certainly undertake to write to him and to clarify that point.
Sending back the document would not have undone the fact of transmission of the document to us. [Interruption.] Nor would any of those braying on the Opposition Benches for one moment have believed me if I had then said that I had sent it back without having read it. It would have been a pointless gesture. There is no obligation in "Erskine May" to return a document in those circumstances. There is an obligation to ensure that one does not interfere with the work of a Select Committee or give premature disclosure. That we have observed.
I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. My hon. Friend has a great interest and great experience in foreign affairs. He will continue to use that experience and interest to advantage.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the matters that we are discussing, although serious, are by no means as serious as the suffering and slaughter that are still going on in Sierra Leone, and should not be allowed to divert from that? However, does he also agree that one of the principles arising from this and other debates is the principle of the independence of Select Committees?
Select Committees are Committees of the House; they are not an arm of Government. No one, from whichever side of the House, should seek to bully, to pressure or to manipulate Select Committee members for party advantage. Select Committees have not just a right, but a duty, to exercise scrutiny over Government. That is the important principle that I have held throughout all the debates on the Floor of the House about these matters.
Having had so much time to look at our report, will my right hon. Friend carefully study our recommendations, which go further and are wider than those in the original Legg report, particularly those on the arms trade and regulation of mercenaries? Will he in due course come back with a considered response to what was a serious and considered report?

Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall indeed be producing the considered response that she seeks, and we shall seek to do it as rapidly as we can. I also entirely endorse her view that bloodshed continues in Sierra Leone, and that there is still no stability there. Britain remains the country which is providing more material and more practical support to ECOMOG forces than any other nation, as we are providing more humanitarian relief. Currently, it is an uphill task trying to restore stability to Sierra Leone. I also tell my hon. Friend that I am under absolutely no illusion about the independence of the Select Committee system; the Foreign Affairs Committee often reminds me of it.

Mr. David Wilshire: If I heard the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that his Minister of State also received, and therefore saw, a copy of the leaked document. Will he therefore say whether the Minister of State saw that document before or after he signed the written answer of 16 February—to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—in which he said that he saw the official document only at 8 o'clock that morning? If the Minister had seen the document before he signed the answer, he was misleading the House by painting a half-picture. If the Minister believes in the ethics that the Foreign Secretary preaches, he will resign if he signed that question knowing that there had been a leak.

Mr. Cook: Of course he saw it before he answered that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes—the Select Committee report itself was published eight days before the answer. Therefore, manifestly, he had seen it. I should say also that the hon. Gentleman was incorrectly


paraphrasing the answer that was given. My hon. Friend the Minister was asked when he first saw the Command Paper; he answered that accurately and factually.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Today, we are getting some high-octane humbug from the Opposition. Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicions that, in the previous Parliament, it may well have happened that Conservative Members occasionally gave Ministers fair warning—or, perhaps, unfair warning—of impending criticism of them? Does he agree also that the big difference in the case we are considering is that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is an honourable man and that he—someone—has resigned?

Mr. Cook: I cannot improve on my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Foreign Secretary has told the House, both today and in written answers, that he has twice been in receipt of leaked information—the draft report and subsequent conclusions. He therefore has undoubtedly "failed deliberately" to inform Parliament—to use words that he used in the House on a previous occasion. Today, he has told the House that the Minister of State also has effectively "failed deliberately" to inform the House. Does not the Foreign Secretary have a duty to report wrongdoing when he knows that it has happened? Is there not a duty on the Minister of State to report wrongdoing when he knows that it has happened? What standards does such behaviour set in public life? Cannot the public deduce from it, "Don't commit the crime, but you can receive the stolen goods"?
On 16 February, in reply to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Minister of State gave essentially the same answer as the Foreign Secretary has given today to the House. The answer is simply a clever attempt at obfuscation. However, the Minister of State understood the question. Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House whether he cleared the answer to that question, and whether he will apologise to the House?

Mr. Cook: No, I did not disclose the draft that I received to the House; I would be in breach of privilege if I had disclosed the report to anyone else. As to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, it was his question yesterday that was fully, frankly, openly and comprehensively answered by us. There is no way in which he can possibly argue that the reply that he received to his question was an obfuscation. Indeed, it is precisely because of that that we are here now. If the previous Government had been as honest and as full in answering questions, they would not have got into so much trouble.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell the Foreign Secretary that, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I accept his statement on this sad affair? May I also point out that, from 1983 to 1987, as a then Opposition Member on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, I was aware of wholesale leaking by Government members of that Committee? May I tell him also that I have benefited enormously from

the comradeship given to me, both in that Committee and elsewhere, by our hon. and old Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)? He committed a grievous error of judgment, but has behaved honourably in his resignation. That should not be lost on the odd-job lot who comprise what I call the English rural party.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I note that, as the proceedings have developed, we have still not had a further intervention by Opposition Front Benchers to give us the assurance I sought that leaking was never known to happen under the previous Government.

Sir John Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Minister who accepts and retains a document leaked personally to him by a member of a Select Committee makes himself complicit in the leak?

Mr. Cook: I have already said to the House—I say it again to the right hon. Gentleman—that I have been through "Erskine May" and am quite clear that I have fully complied with the obligations on me as a Minister not to impede or obstruct the work of the Committee, with which I fully co-operated during its inquiry.

Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the Nolan committee, we drew to the attention of all hon. Members—most of all, to Ministers and senior Members—the responsibility that we all share for maintaining the highest standards of conduct in public life? May I say to him that we also drew attention to the damage that leaks cause to confidence in the integrity of officials, in the civil service and in the working of Government and of Parliament? As a very senior parliamentarian, he knew that the document he received was a document that should not have been given to him.
In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that the response he has given so far is not maintaining the highest standards of conduct in public life? May I urge him very seriously indeed to consider—in the further representations that the Chairman of the Select Committee said will be made—whether the attitude and approach to what he considers to be his responsibilities should usefully change?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If there had been a leak of the report, if I had received it and if I had used it to disclose the report, I would indeed deserve all the strictures that he has offered. There were two leaks in advance of publication of the report. Neither of them came from the Foreign Office; both of them came from people who were motivated to be critical of the Foreign Office.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on the date of publication of the report, the Prime Minister went public, and on television two hours before the report was published, made references to recommendations in the report and rubbished the report as he could not have done unless he had been shown part of the report or it recommendations? How is it possible that that could have happened if the


situation is as the Foreign Secretary describes it? Should not we be condemning not only the Foreign Secretary, but the Prime Minister for the whole matter?

Mr. Cook: If I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he was referring to the Prime Minister's interview on the "Jimmy Young Show", which took place two hours after the press conference in which the right hon. Gentleman participated. Therefore, there was no difficulty in knowing what the report contained or what the right hon. Gentleman's view was. For the record—once again—the Prime Minister did not see the draft that I saw.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend please clarify his answer to a previous question: was the draft report handed over personally to the Secretary of State himself by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); if not, to whom was it handed over; and to whom was the envelope addressed?

Mr. Cook: No, it was not handed over to me; I understand that it arrived by fax. I do not know to whom the envelope was addressed, but I shall happily answer the questions.

Mr. David Heath: When the right hon. Gentleman calls in aid the performance of the previous Government, does he not appreciate that he and other Labour Members were elected to do rather better than the previous Government? Does he not accept that the appropriate response is frankness, not the type of sophistry revealed in the reply that the Minister gave on Monday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, given the seriousness of the criticisms in the Select Committee's report of senior officials within his Department, he was quite wrong to have prejudged the issue before giving the Committee's report the reading that it deserved?

Mr. Cook: My answer yesterday was fully frank, as I think would be accepted even by those who tabled the questions. On the subject of prejudging, I must remind the House that the report did not arrive suddenly; indeed, probably no Select Committee report has been longer in gestation than this one. The findings of the report were no surprise to those of us who gave extensive evidence to the Select Committee at repeated sessions. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I do not think that I was wrong; whether it was that day, the next day or now, I believe that I was right to defend officials against what I thought was disproportionate and unfair criticism.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am totally opposed to the leaking of reports, which does Select Committees no good? I do not understand why our hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) did it, but he has admitted it and apologised. However, what would the people of Sierra Leone—who are suffering brutality, deprivation, crimes and atrocities—think of the scene in the House of Commons in the last 10 minutes? Are there not more important matters in the country concerned than this particular minor issue?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend highlights something which, throughout the past seven months, has been an area

of bewilderment to the people of Sierra Leone, who know perfectly well that Britain has given more support to their elected and legitimate Government than any other nation. They cannot comprehend the way in which this has become a matter of deep division within our Parliament. They themselves only wish that they were allowed to have a Parliament in which they could have such debates.

Mr. Eric Forth: Which fax machine received the message? If the Foreign Secretary cannot tell us now, will he undertake to do so subsequently? Will he put into the public domain a copy of the fax received, so that everyone can see where it came from and where it went to?

Mr. Cook: Everyone knows where it came from—my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has already said that. I cannot say which fax machine it came on. The Foreign Office has many fax machines.

Mr. John Randall: Did one copy come out of the fax or several? [Laughter.] I would appreciate if the Foreign Secretary could listen for a moment. If there was just one, did the Foreign Secretary show it to the Minister of State, or did the Minister of State show it to him? Does that constitute a leak?

Mr. Cook: All I can confirm is that it came on fax paper—which is normally white—and had black lettering. The descent of this question into trivia illustrates how little of substance there is actually here.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify something? He referred earlier to other leaks in the press. I do not know whether I misunderstood him, but I understood him to suggest that those emanated from the Select Committee. Will he reconsider that and state that there is no basis whatever for that assumption about reports which were, in any event, inaccurate?

Mr. Cook: What I said was "in or around the Select Committee". It certainly came from somebody who had the ability to obtain the draft of the report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your office."] The reports that appeared in the press were certainly not inspired by the Foreign Office. The one in The Independent was fairly accurate about exactly what was to happen, and was placed by somebody who was hostile to the interests of the Foreign Office.

Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Foreign Secretary not simply admit that, when the Minister of State said on 16 February that his Department received copies of the final report on the morning of 9 February, the impression that he was seeking to give was that Ministers in the Department had no foreknowledge whatever of the likely contents of that report? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, in retrospect, that by splitting hairs in his pathetic fashion this afternoon, he has managed to discredit himself further even than he has accomplished in the past 21 months?

Mr. Cook: The Minister of State answered the question that he was asked. Yesterday, I answered the question that I was asked. We both answered those questions fully and comprehensively, and the full facts are now in the public domain.

Points of Order

Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If an hon. Member or a Minister finds himself this evening or tomorrow in receipt of an advance copy of a Select Committee report which has not been published or given to the House, what would be your advice? Should the Minister or hon. Member sit on the document, or should he immediately report having received it?

Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to continue questions on the statement.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman trying also to continue the questioning of the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Wilshire: I am seeking clarification, Madam Speaker. if I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we have had quite some time on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understood the Foreign Secretary correctly. That is not a matter for me. If he has a point of order, I will listen to it. However, I do not want an interpretation of what he thought the Foreign Secretary said.

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when the Foreign Secretary started his statement.

Mr. Wilshire: Madam Speaker, I believe that this is a genuine point of order. I heard it said that reporting a leaked document to the House amounted to a breach of privilege. Could you confirm whether that is a correct interpretation of the rules of this House?

Madam Speaker: I will have to have notice of that question, as I want to be clear and careful in my answer. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind, I would like notice of the question.

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you.

Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It can hardly be further to it, because I cannot answer it.

Mr. King: I understand that you do not want to prolong this matter, and I entirely understand your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, may I suggest that you address his point in the same way as you have decided to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? This is a serious matter, and the House

is entitled to ask for the Speaker's guidance on the correct procedure. Will you reflect and report to the House on what the response should be?

Madam Speaker: I do not undertake to report to the House, but I will reflect on the matter. I quite understand that, from time to time, the House needs the Speaker's guidance, and I am willing to give it. Over the past few days, I have considered this matter carefully, and I am aware of our procedures according to "Erskine May". I will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and look into the matter.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), as you rightly observed, was assuredly not present in the Chamber for the start of the statement on Kosovo, but he categorically insists—simply for the record—that he was present in the Chamber for the start of the Foreign Secretary's second statement. I can vouchsafe that he is telling the truth, because he has been sitting next to me throughout.

Madam Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I always watch hon. Members on both sides of the House who appear late for a statement, and then try to ask a question or raise a point of order. I accept that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was not here for the first statement, but was here for the second, and I will take his point of order.

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give some guidance to the House and to Ministers on the correct procedure for answering written questions? Is it sufficient merely to answer with what is deemed to be the most narrow definition possible within the question, or should the answer seek to give the information that is required by the questioner?

Madam Speaker: I fear that I cannot advise Ministers or their offices as to how they might answer questions.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to page 221 of "Erskine May", which refers to the publication in Hansard of written answers given by Ministers? I understand that there has been guidance from the Editor of Hansard that he will not publish answers of more than five pages. Will you consult the Editor, or look into the matter?
I was given an answer two days ago by the Minister for Local Government and Housing, which went on to five pages. However, one page contained very little information. Therefore, the Minister stated that the requested information had been placed in the Library of the House. The question was about educational expenditure across all local authorities.
We often see full lists of local authorities published in Hansard, because that is a way of giving comparisons. I could have split the question to ask about shire counties and unitary authorities separately, but the Table Office would probably have told me that I should put down one question rather than two. It is important that the answers should be available in Hansard and we should not have


to go to the Library for the information. I hope that you will ask the Editor of Hansard to reconsider the ruling, and will give it some consideration yourself.

Madam Speaker: I had some indication of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The House knows that the substance of replies to questions is a matter for Ministers, not for the Chair. However, Speakers have ruled that there should be a limit of four A4 pages to replies, to avoid Hansard being filled with a few long answers each day. That is sensible and the Minister's action in this case is reasonable. That is the ruling that Speakers have given in the past. Because I knew of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, I had an opportunity to look up the ruling.

Misuse of Drugs (Amendment)

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis resin for medicinal purposes.
Yesterday, in Swansea, a pensioner was given a cruel and unjust sentence of 12 months. He was given that sentence in the name of this House and all hon. Members. Mr. Eric Mann is known to me and to other hon. Members through his correspondence over several years. He is clearly an intelligent man. This decent and otherwise law-abiding man committed the crime—in the eyes of the court in Swansea and of the House—of using his chosen medicine to relieve his chronic pain.
Like many others, Mr. Mann had tried many conventional and unconventional cures. None of them worked for him, so he decided to use cannabis, with which he found relief from the pain. He was not selling it to anyone. He was not involved in any way in the illegal market. He grew his own. For that, this pensioner is facing a 12–month term of gaol.
There have been many similar cases. In a case last month in Hove, the jury—like many others in such cases—wanted to be compassionate and asked the judge whether they should convict a man who was confined to a wheelchair even if they felt that the law was unjust. The judge told them that it was up to Parliament to change the law, and that they must abide by that and return a verdict. It is up to us to decide the sentences. The responsibility for the savage injustice that has been meted out to Mr. Eric Mann in Swansea lies here.
The House of Lords Select Committee is hardly a bunch of drug-crazed teenagers. Its members are senior and elderly scientists. The Bill reflects their recommendations on the matter—that it should be possible for cannabis to be prescribed by a limited number of doctors in an unlicensed form to named patients, just as heroin and cocaine are supplied. It may come as a surprise to many that heroin and cocaine are prescribed legally. That cannot be done with cannabis. As the Lords Committee recommended, the Bill would also allow further research without the need for a special licence from the Home Office.
The Government's reaction to the report came within nanoseconds of its publication. They said:
The Government's view is that cannabis should not be available on prescription unless or until the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicinal form had been scientifically established and a marketing authorisation issued by the Medicines Control Agency."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 607.]
Superficially, that may seem reasonable, but a more telling comment came in The Pharmaceutical Journal, which quoted a Labour party source as saying:
Whatever the evidence, this administration is not going to risk being seen as soft on drug taking.
That shows the true position. When reading the press releases from the previous Government and this Government, it is impossible to get beyond a couple of sentences before finding the word "tough". Governments regard it as electorally damaging to be seen as soft on drugs.
I hate my party to be seen in this way, but the Government are not tough on drugs, but tough on multiple sclerosis patients, tough on cancer victims and tough on


Aids sufferers. The Government seized on the word "unlicensed", as though it is rare to have an unlicensed drug. Some 36 per cent. of the medicines that are prescribed to children in hospitals are unlicensed. They have not gone through trials. The trials for a new drug are rightly very tight, given all the tragedies that have occurred.
However, all the problems that we have had have come from chemical drugs—substances that do not occur naturally in the form in which we are taking them or injecting them in various ways. Cannabis is a natural substance which has been used for at least 3,000 years, according to the records. No medicine has been tried and tested like cannabis sativa. It was used by the people who built the pyramids to help with their eye problems. They did not know why it worked, but it did. Cannabis has been used as a medicine throughout the centuries on every continent. The word in Chinese means "big medicine". Unfortunately, our judgment has been clouded by recreational use, which has come about almost entirely since cannabis was banned.
Many other drugs are given unlicensed. Many of our established medicines would never get through the licensing rules. Several hon. Members have told me that they thought that the problem had been solved and the Government were carrying out trials. Sadly, there is no hope under the current policy of any patient receiving cannabis for at least five years, possibly much longer, because of the complexity of cannabis, which has at least 400 naturally occurring ingredients. The trials may finish in five years, 10 years, sometime or never.
Hon. Members should speak to people suffering from multiple sclerosis who are looking forward to a good night's sleep, which they cannot get without cannabis. Tens of thousands of people are taking it, including those suffering from the foul side effects of chemotherapy and the awful nausea and vomiting that can go on for days, so debilitating the cancer victims that they lose the will to struggle against the cancer. Some who suffer from the dreadful pain of Aids have found solace in this ancient medicine.
When I raised the subject some years ago, I brought three master criminals to the House to hear the debate. They were all women. One of them was in her 30s and a mother of young children. She had MS and found it impossible to control her bodily functions without the use of cannabis. There was another lady in her 60s with

cerebral palsy. She was a lovely lady who had a cannabis plant the size of a bush in her garage and kept her spliffs rolled up in a silver cigarette case next to a bust of Queen Victoria, who took cannabis every month of her adult life. The third, Carol Howard, told a moving story of how she cared for her daughter Sara, who was dying from a rare form of cancer. Sara knew that she was dying. Chemotherapy was all that was available, but it had dreadful side effects. The chemical drugs left her a zombie. She could not communicate; but if she took cannabis she could talk lucidly to her family and say those precious things that one wants to say when one realises that death is at hand.
I challenge anyone in the House to say that, in that position, they would not supply their loved ones with cannabis, if that was the only thing that offered relief. If we are not prepared to obey the laws ourselves—and I am sure that none of us would in such a case—how on earth can we continue to justify them?
The principal reason for the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee was compassion. Members of the Committee looked into the face of Clare Hodges and of the people from the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, which is a patients' organisation that does not, unlike many, get money from drug companies. All its members are seriously ill, most with multiple sclerosis, and suffer exhaustion. They have few resources, but they are behind the Bill and behind previous Adjournment debates on the subject.
Dare we say to those people, as the Government are saying, that they will have to wait for the long time that it takes for this ancient medicine, one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to humankind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Brian Cotter, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. James Wallace, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Donald Gorrie and Dr. Peter Brand.

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 50].

Orders of the Day — Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 3

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF BOARD

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out line 16.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 18, leave out from 'prosecutions)' to end of line 19.

Mr. Davies: The most irrefutable evidence of the fact that the Government are determined to disguise from the general public the full moment and purport of what they are trying to achieve in social security by running down and eroding the national insurance system is that we have had two debates on social security Bills this week—one yesterday and one today—and they have done everything possible, using all the tricks available, to curtail debate and distract attention.
Yesterday, the Government clearly chose to have Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on a day when there was a major statement on the euro that was bound to take the time of the House and capture the headlines. Today, a Bill that abolishes the Contributions Agency and merges it with the Inland Revenue is to be discussed after we have had three ministerial statements. Our debate will again be necessarily, but very unfortunately, curtailed.
Yesterday's Bill represented the policy aspect of the Government's attack on our national insurance system, while today's represents the administrative side of the same project. Until now, the Contributions Agency has had a separate role, with responsibility, which it has taken very seriously, for collecting national insurance contributions and for the integrity of the separate national insurance fund. All that is to be abolished and the agency will be folded into the Inland Revenue, which collects direct taxation revenue, so in practice there will be no distinction between the national insurance fund and the general Consolidated Fund. That is exactly what the Government are aiming for.
Clause 3 has a peculiar quirk—it disapplies certain provisions of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890. The amendment would prevent the disapplication, in subsection (3)(c), of the provisions allowing officers to conduct proceedings before justices. It is a matter of common sense that it would not always be in the public interest for the Contributions Agency or, henceforward, the Inland Revenue, to have to brief solicitors and banisters, at their usual fees, to present matters to the courts. It is sensible to provide for officers of the Revenue to have rights of audience. Why, though, is that to be disapplied in the clause but reapplied in paragraph 21 of schedule 1?
I made that point in Committee and received no satisfactory answer. The whole point of Report is to pick up either problems that have been identified and not resolved in Committee or assurances that have been given in Committee by Ministers and not fulfilled. That enables the House to take a view, in the light of those failures, on how the Bill should be amended before it finally proceeds to Third Reading.
Amendment No. 2 is, again, a commonsensical amendment. The rights under the 1890 Act of the relevant authority—the Inland Revenue subsuming the Contributions Agency—to mitigate fines and stay proceedings are to be abolished, and that is a thoroughly retrograde step. It is extremely important that any bureaucracy with the wide-sweeping administrative powers that the Revenue has should be able, when it is clearly not in the public interest to proceed against a citizen, to decide not to do so, or indeed to mitigate fines. That negative discretion should be retained, and a positive discretion could be very dangerous to the liberties of the subject.
The Minister told me in Committee that subsection (3)(f), disapplying section 35 of the 1890 Act, was there because the discretion was already provided, or would be provided, elsewhere in the Bill or in other statutes. She gave me an assurance at column 59 of the Official Report of our Committee that she would give me chapter and verse before the conclusion of our proceedings. She did not do so, and I hope that she will rectify that now. I am afraid that the Opposition intend to continue to take seriously such assurances given by Ministers in Committee.

6 pm

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will recall, we had some interesting discussions on the points covered by amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in Committee. Since then, we have had a further, detailed look at the exceptions provided for in clause 3(3). The technical point spotted by the hon. Gentleman and covered by amendment No. 1 has also been spotted by my officials.
Clause 4 and schedule 4 of the Bill were introduced at the Lords Report stage for very good reasons. The power for the Revenue to recover small national insurance contribution debts, such as tax debts, in the magistrates courts will make the process of collecting contributions more effective. We agreed on that point in Committee. Unfortunately, at that time it was not noticed that there would be less room for doubt if the Bill also allowed section 27 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 to apply to NICs, so no consequential technical amendment was tabled in the other place.
There is unlikely to be a problem in practice, but there is, in principle, the possibility of challenge to the right of a non-lawyer official addressing the court in any proceedings that have not been commenced in their name. Having said that, amendment No. 1 would go too far, because the wholesale removal of clause 3(3)(c) would cause duplication by section 27 of the 1890 Act of other express provision for non-lawyer representation elsewhere in the Bill. If amendment No. 1 were accepted, the whole Bill would have to go back to the other place, taking up time there which could be used much more usefully than in considering a minor technical amendment. For those


reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that the application of section 27 to NICs will be secured by a Government amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Meanwhile, we intend to postpone the commencement of clause 3(3)(c).
Amendment No. 2 returns to an issue that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also raised in Committee. It reflects his concern, which I share, that the Inland Revenue should be able to mitigate penalties that apply in relation to national insurance contributions. I can assure him that the amendment is not required to achieve that effect.
As I stressed in Committee, the main provisions governing what the Inland Revenue can do in relation to penalties are in the Taxes Management Act 1970, and not the considerably more ancient Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, which amendment No. 2 would bring further into play. Those provisions apply, among other things, to pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions that are recovered alongside PAYE, and will be extended to national insurance contributions generally by clause 3(2) of the Bill. It is those Taxes Management Act rules which provide the reassurance the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is seeking.
I promised the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse, and I refer him to section 98 of the Taxes Management Act. Hon. Members will have seen that paragraph 1 of schedule 5 to the Bill extends the penalty provision to cover failure to comply with a contributions inspector's enforcement powers, by bringing section 110ZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 into the table in section 98. While section 98 allows the Inland Revenue to charge penalties, it also provides—this is the crucial reassurance the hon. Gentleman seeks—for the Inland Revenue to seek less than the maximum possible penalty.
Sections 100 to 100B of the Taxes Management Act apply where the Inland Revenue decides to levy a penalty in some amount. They ensure that the person affected by the penalty charge has the right to appeal against the levy of the penalty, and its amount, to the general commissioners or the special commissioners, who are independent of the Inland Revenue. The commissioners can decide that a smaller or no penalty is payable.
There is more. Section 102 of the Taxes Management Act gives the Inland Revenue a further power to mitigate any penalty. Section 102 is short, and it may help the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford if I read it out:
The Board"—
the Inland Revenue—
may in their discretion mitigate any penalty, or stay or compound any proceedings for a penalty, and may also, after judgment, further mitigate or entirely remit the penalty.
In the light of those reassurances on both points, I hope that the hon Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister. She has now given the House full details in answer to the point raised in amendment No. 2 and I accept her comments in good faith that she has had legal advice that the protections we sought are in the previous legislation.
I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry about amendment No. 1. Most of us feel chuffed if we manage to spot a technical error in a Bill, but if I have contributed to improving a Bill of which I thoroughly disapprove, I feel unhappy. In either event and in the light of the assurances we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

DECISIONS VARYING OR SUPERSEDING EARLIER DECISIONS

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 30 to 39 and insert
'for an officer of the Board to resubmit a case to the Commissioners if, in his view, a material change of circumstances has occurred since an earlier decision was made by the Commissioners; and in any such case it shall be for the Commissioners to determine whether any such change of circumstances which would warrant their setting aside their earlier decision has indeed occurred.'.
This is not a technical amendment. Indeed, we take strong exception to the present form of clause 10, which, as it stands, is extraordinary. We debated the issue in Committee, but we did not get satisfactory assurances from the Government and we felt that we had to revisit it on Report. Clause 10 would mean that if there had been an appeal by a national insurance payer—a citizen—to the commissioners, and they had found in his or her favour and against the Revenue, that decision could be arbitrarily set aside by an officer of the board on the ground that circumstances have changed.
It is extraordinary that the two parties to a quasi-judicial process are not treated equally. Far from it, because if the appeal goes against the board, the officer can overrule the commissioners without taking the case back to them. That is completely wrong. The appeal procedure should be a genuine procedure. Under the Government's proposal, the appeal procedure would be bogus and it would be a deception to refer to it as an appeal. It would be a cruel and cynical charade, because the citizen would believe that he had a right of appeal, but, even if he won the appeal before the commissioners, the Revenue could subsequently overturn the decision.
The Bill provides that the decision of the commissioners can be changed
in the event of a material change of circumstances".
However, that provides no protection, because it is the officer who decides whether there has been such a change of circumstances. Clearly, clause 10 undermines the jurisdiction of the commissioners, who have a right to decide on points of law and points of fact. We cannot have one party to an appeal overruling the commissioners in such a way. That would be arbitrary, tyrannical and bureaucratic government. Amendment No. 3 would make it clear that if the board claimed that there had been a material change in circumstances, it would have to go back to the commissioners and argue the case. That is reasonable. Then, the commissioners could decide whether there had been a material change of circumstances and, if so, whether it warranted a different judgment in that case. That is how any legal procedure should work in a country whose systems are based on the rule of law, as I hope ours always will be.

Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman said, we also discussed this issue in Committee, and I hope that I can


reassure him this time. However, I want to point out that his amendment goes much further than I think—and hope—that he intends. It would mean that the only decisions that could be varied or superseded would be precisely those in which an appeal against the original decision had been determined by the commissioners.
It may help if I explain the difference between varying and superseding a decision that has been made by an officer of the board. Varying a decision involves amending, in some respect, a decision that has been made; superseding a decision means that a decision that has been made covering an open-ended period of time, and which is correct for the period up to the date on which it was made, later on ceases to be correct after there is a change in the relevant circumstances.
I can illustrate that with the example of employment status. When a person is engaged to carry out some work, the question of employment status may arise in relation to income tax or national insurance contributions. The decision on the employment status might be that the person is engaged on terms that make his or her status that of an employee from the date of engagement. If it later transpires that the information on which that decision was based was incorrect or incomplete, the decision could be varied to say that, from the outset, the individual in fact had self-employed status.
However, if the decision was correctly based on the full facts and there was, later on, a change in the terms on which the person was engaged, that decision might cease to be appropriate at that point in time. In that case, the Inland Revenue could make a superseding decision that defined the point in time that the original decision ceased to be applicable and incorporated a fresh decision that was relevant from that point of time onwards.
The Bill provides that an appeal can be made against both the variation of decisions and against superseding decisions. In practice, few decisions will be the subject of an appeal, essentially because the people affected by them will be content with their terms. However, the amendment would prevent decisions from being varied or superseded in any circumstances unless there had been an appeal against the original decision which had been determined by the tax appeal commissioners and followed by a subsequent change of circumstances. That would mean that most decisions could not be varied or superseded even where it was in the contributor's interests that they should be. If we were to require that, all superseding decisions to be made by the commissioners would mean quite unnecessary hearings in cases where the contributor and the Inland Revenue were in full agreement that a change had occurred. That would mean extra costs to the national insurance fund and extra costs and worries to the contributor.
That is why we think that it is better, and fairer, to allow the Inland Revenue official to make the fresh decision and to trouble contributors with an appeal only where they disagree. I stress that there is no question of Inland Revenue officials being able to overturn commissioners' decisions at will. Each superseding decision will carry its own right of appeal, and it would be absurd—and potentially a case of maladministration—for an Inland Revenue official to supersede a decision of the commissioners unless the facts had changed, as the appellant would return to the commissioners who would, no doubt, return their original decision.
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers in clause 10 do not give the sweeping power to officials that he fears, but are instead a necessary provision to save time and worry for contributors. I hope that, in the light of these reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary, who has shown that she is capable of giving a lucid and extensive exegesis of the Bill. She seemed less willing to do so in Committee.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: That is insulting.

Mr. Davies: On the contrary, I am making a complimentary remark. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should object, and we are making some progress as a result of the Economic Secretary's change of attitude.
I hope that the Inland Revenue officials unfortunately charged with the future administration of national insurance will read the explanation that we have just heard whenever they come across difficult cases, and that they will be guided by the limiting interpretation of the Bill's powers.
However, on the basis of what the Economic Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 15, line 4, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 5 and insert
'not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The reason for the amendment is that the Bill is marked—deformed, even—by an extraordinary number of what are known as Henry VIII clauses. Those are clauses in which the Government simply write themselves a blank cheque for powers to produce regulations on just about everything under the sun. They give no indication of what those regulations might contain, or of any limitation on them.
The Bill contains even more such clauses than most Bills brought forward by this Government—for example, clauses 9, 10, 13, 14, 15—which is especially sinister—and 24, which deals with Northern Ireland. There is far too much of that sort of thing, and we have tabled the amendment to protect the House and to place some limitation on the freedom of the Executive.
Power has gone to the Government's head, so the amendment would replace the Bill's provision for resolutions to be passed by negative procedure with a requirement that affirmative resolutions be passed. That would ensure that the House has the opportunity to examine the resolutions when they are put forward.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This amendment would require a debate in both Houses before any Order in Council or


regulations could be made by the Secretary of State or the board of Inland Revenue under the powers in the Bill. However, regulations primarily will be about the detailed procedures for appeals to go down the tax appeals route.
I suggest to the House that these are not matters of such sufficient moment that we should set down a mandatory requirement for debates on them. The House will recall that the powers in the Social Security Act 1998 to make regulations about decisions, and appeals to the unified appeals tribunals against those decisions, generally use the negative resolution procedure, as do the Taxes Management Act 1970 powers to make regulations about tax appeals.
I freely accept that the Bill, in clauses 23 and 24, contains broader powers to make secondary legislation, which will also be made under the negative resolution procedure. The appropriateness of this was considered by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place. It is worth quoting from its first report of this Session, dated 9 December 1998, at some length. It states:
All the powers in the Bill are subject to negative procedure … the Department's memorandum gives an account of each and the Committee finds it necessary here to refer only to the Henry VIII powers discussed in the next paragraphs.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that the Bill had an extraordinary number of Henry VIII powers, but in fact it has only two. The paragraphs mentioned at the end of the quotation from the House of Lords Select Committee cover what are now clauses 23 and 24. In both cases, the Committee considered it appropriate that the negative procedure, as provided in the Bill, should apply. Accordingly, the Committee's recommendation, at paragraph 7, was as follows:
The Committee has noted the two Henry VIII powers. There is nothing in the Bill which it is necessary to draw to the attention of the House.
Let me add to that reassurance. For the avoidance of any possible doubt, nothing in clause 25 downgrades an existing requirement in social security legislation for the affirmative procedure into the negative procedure. If there were any such downgrading, the hon. Gentleman would be quite right to express concern. For example, section 176(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 puts under the affirmative procedure those regulations that increase the rate of class 2 national insurance contributions for certain earners. It would not be right to convert such important matters to the negative procedure, and the Bill does not do so. Paragraph 30 of schedule 3 says:
In Section I76(3)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure), after 'Secretary of State,' there is inserted 'the Treasury or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,'.
Paragraph 30 makes it clear, therefore, that powers subject to the affirmative procedure retain that procedure on their transfer to the Treasury or Inland Revenue, and it is right that that should be so.
In the main, social security regulations are made under the negative procedure, as has long been the case. Nothing in the Bill changes the degree of scrutiny to which the

House has been entitled in the past. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister, but I cannot pretend that I am happy with those assurances. The Government are taking far too many powers to make resolutions that are subject to the negative procedure. There is a strong argument for considering how the House handles statutory instruments upstairs, but that is a different subject and I cannot go into it now. The fact that rafts of new powers to make regulations of this kind are being created both in the Government's social security legislation and in many other Bills should give urgency to that argument. In the light of what the Minister has said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

TRANSFER OF CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 22, line 8, at end insert—
'(4AA) All such deductions, withholdings and payments by the Inland Revenue from sums due to the National Insurance Fund in each financial year shall be subject to a specific audit and report by the Audit Commission.'.
Again, this is unfinished business from upstairs to which we thought it right to draw the attention of the House. The explanatory memorandum refers, on page 251, to a large number of costs, amounting in gross terms to something in the order of £50 million, which will be incurred as a result of bringing together the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. It also talks about savings of £1.4 million in 2000–01, rising to £5.5 million in 2002–03.
Anyone who reads the explanatory memorandum will therefore reach the reasonable conclusion that there will be a net cost to public funds of several tens of millions of pounds at least. It was with more than some surprise, therefore, that we heard the Under-Secretary say in Committee:
There will be savings in public money".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 February 1999; c. 12.]
We never heard what those savings would be. I am perfectly prepared to believe that, despite the substantial initial costs, the Government may count on some savings in future. I am prepared to believe that they will be so great that even when properly discounted to proper value, the net position is positive. However, if that is so, it does not appear in the evidence that the Government have produced, and the only reasonable conclusion that one may draw from the explanatory memorandum is the reverse impression that there will be a net cost to the taxpayer. It is clear that a further explanation is required, and I hope that we shall hear one now.

Ms Hewitt: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has addressed amendment No. 5, which was not selected, rather than amendment No. 6, which he moved. If I may, I shall explain why amendment No. 6 should be rejected, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be content with that.
Amendment No. 6 deals with the question of the Inland Revenue charging its administrative costs to the national insurance fund in relation to the collection of national insurance contributions. That was an issue on which the hon. Gentleman expressed considerable concern in the Standing Committee, and I trust that I shall be able to reassure him this evening.
My first point is that there is nothing new in the Inland Revenue charging the appropriate amount of its expenditure to the national insurance fund. That happens already, because the Inland Revenue is responsible for collecting 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions and for carrying out most of the associated administration. Of course, the Revenue charges only the cost belonging to its functions in relation to contributions to the national insurance fund.
The second point is that Parliament has already addressed, quite comprehensively, the matter that concerns the hon. Gentleman. The existing law—primarily part XII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—specifies the expenses that can be charged to the national insurance fund, whether by the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue. The Act also rightly requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and certify the accounts of the national insurance fund, in a report that is laid before us annually. In other words, the National Audit Office acts as the external auditor of the national insurance fund as well as of expenditure by the Inland Revenue. The NAO also provides us with an annual report detailing the outcome of its independent scrutiny of the national insurance fund. Nothing in the Bill changes that situation.
Thirdly, the amendment would involve the Audit Commission in the scrutiny of expenditure. Although I have a high regard for the work of the Audit Commission, that extension would not be sensible or appropriate. It would duplicate effort, with both the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission acting as external auditors of the national insurance fund. It would confuse the division of responsibilities between the National Audit Office, which examines the accounts of Government Departments, and the Audit Commission, which audits local authorities and national health service bodies such as hospital trusts.
I hope that I have made it clear that amendment No. 6 is both unnecessary and inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw it; if not, I must urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am extremely grateful, as may be imagined, to have had an opportunity to put on the record the considerable concerns expressed in amendment No. 5. The Government have been saved from answering those concerns, and I can see both Ministers laughing, doubtless with great relief. Amendment No. 5 relates to a serious question about the use of public funds, and our points are now on the record. Had I been allowed to do so, I should have wanted to call a vote on it if I had not received the assurances that I required. We do not know whether the Bill will cost or save the taxpayer money, although it seems certain that it will cost the taxpayer a substantial amount. We shall return to that point in another context.
I accept the Minister's assurances on amendment No. 6. The Audit Commission will plainly have a dual responsibility to audit the Inland Revenue in the normal

way and to audit the national insurance fund for as long as there remains a national insurance fund, which, unfortunately, seems increasingly something of an illusion. If any future problem is identified by the Audit Commission, or in any other way, and if excessive expenses are being charged to the national insurance fund by the Revenue, we shall certainly remind the Minister of the assurances that she has given the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

RECOVERY OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE INCOME TAX RECOVERY PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 40, line 46, at end insert
'provided that, where such proceedings are brought without either distinguishing the amounts the employer is liable to pay or specifying the employees in question, the employer, if he be found guilty of any material default in his obligation to pay National Insurance, shall be entitled to be indemnified by the Inland Revenue for any costs and expenses incurred in defending himself in any such proceedings.'.
This is an important amendment, which would ensure that the Inland Revenue in its new guise—having taken over the Contributions Agency—would not be allowed to conduct fishing expeditions. That is not desirable. It wastes public money if agencies go through companies' books hoping to find something amiss somewhere and it creates tremendous costs for businesses—most of which are entirely honest and should not be burdened with excessive costs of that kind. Such activities can easily destroy the trust that should exist in a free society between the state revenue-raising agencies—in this case, the Inland Revenue—and the public.
We were concerned about the existing text of the Bill, which states that the Revenue will be allowed to proceed in these inquiries and investigations and to launch proceedings
without distinguishing the amounts which the employer is liable to pay in respect of each employee and without specifying the employees in question".
That is ludicrous. We have provided alternative wording, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Ms Hewitt: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has invented a new way of speeding up proceedings in the House: he puts on record his concerns about an amendment that has not been selected and I give him the assurances that he seeks on the amendment that has been selected. It is a case of two for the price of one.
As to amendment No. 7, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about fishing expeditions, but I am extremely puzzled about the amendment's wording. It appears to introduce indemnities funded by the national insurance fund—which will remain in existence and is specifically preserved by the Bill—but makes those indemnities available only to those found guilty of a crime. That is curious, and I think that there is a technical fault in the wording of the amendment.
I stress—I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—that employers will have every opportunity to discuss with the Inland Revenue what amount of


contribution is due before recovery proceedings are contemplated. Neither employers nor any other contributor should be compelled to defend recovery proceedings brought by the Inland Revenue just to say that they have been overcharged. However, that situation will not arise.
Under clause 11 of the Bill, the employer will have the right to take disputes about liability to the tax appeal commissioners and, beyond that, to the courts if some point of law is involved. Recovery proceedings in the magistrates court or the county court will be taken only after disputes about the amount of contributions due in law have been resolved or the time limit for an appeal has passed.
I turn to the part of paragraph 5 that provides that it is unnecessary for a recovery action to distinguish the amounts due in respect of each employee. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I give an example illustrating why that is a sensible provision—apart from the practical difficulty involved in listing possibly thousands of employees in a court document.
Suppose an employer allows private use of company cars. Class 1A contributions will be due from the employer, and he must make a return identifying the employees and the cars provided and pay the contributions due. If the employer does not account to the collector of taxes for those class 1A contributions, but chooses instead the alternative payment method, the rules in schedule 4 apply.
Let us suppose that such an employer simply puts down on the form something like "20 cars of such and such a make" without specifying each employee who uses those cars and then fails to pay some or all of the contributions that are due on those 20 cars. In the first instance, the employer will receive an informal request to pay what appears to be due. However, if the employer repeatedly fails to respond, what can the Inland Revenue sensibly do? The important point is that the Inland Revenue will depend on the employer for information. So the only practical option is for the Revenue to take proceedings for the sum that appears due and to put down what details it has in the legal paperwork, even though it cannot list each employee affected because it does not know who they are. That is what paragraph 5 allows.
If, on the other hand, the employer responds to informal requests to pay contributions by explaining why, in his view, the amount requested is not due, matters will follow a different course. If agreement cannot be reached, an officer of the Inland Revenue will make a formal decision under the provisions of clause 8 against which the employer can appeal to the tax appeal commissioners.
Paragraph 5 of schedule 4 in no sense breaks new ground. There is an equivalent provision on the statute book in respect of unpaid income tax due from employers under PAYE procedures. There is also a similar provision for contributions that are payable directly to the collector of taxes—already some 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: It is clear from the Minister's response that some explanation was necessary regarding

the way in which the powers will be used. We have received that explanation and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

INFORMATION

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 46, line 3, at end insert
'except that, in the case of the authorities listed in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, such information shall exclude the names or addresses of individuals.'.
This amendment involves the important issue of protection of privacy. The Inland Revenue has a very good reputation in this country for preserving the privacy of taxpayers and not revealing personal information to unauthorised parties. We are proud of that tradition and want to preserve it. As the Inland Revenue is expanding its empire and absorbing another agency, concerns naturally arise about this issue.
Amendment No. 8 arises in connection with paragraph 3 of schedule 6. Schedule 6 provides a list of agencies and Government Departments to which the Revenue will be able to pass information. The amendment deals with paragraph 3 which lists, among the authorities that are entitled to receive information from the revenue, the Health and Safety Executive, the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics. Those bodies have thousands of employees, and the House should be concerned at the thought that personal information might be passed unnecessarily into their hands. Hence our amendment.
We understand that aggregated, impersonal information regarding people's life expectancies, for example, may be required by the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics. However, we see no reason why personal details should be revealed, and the purpose of our amendment is to protect the names and addresses of individuals. We received no explanation in Committee as to why that protection could not be afforded. I hope that the Government have reconsidered the matter and will accept our amendment in order to achieve that purpose.

Ms Hewitt: I will, if I may, expand on the points that I made in Committee. I hope that I shall again be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.
My first point is that the new section 122AA, as inserted by paragraph 3 of schedule 6, is not about creating new flows of information. The Contributions Agency already passes information to the Health and Safety Executive, the Government Actuary's Department, the Office for National Statistics and the occupational pensions regulatory authority. There is no statutory provision to permit those disclosures: the Department of Social Security makes them on the basis that they are in the public interest.
However, the Inland Revenue has a statutory duty of taxpayer confidentiality that does not permit the disclosure of information unless there is a specific statutory provision. So to enable the existing disclosures to continue once the Contributions Agency is transferred


to the Inland Revenue, we must give the Inland Revenue appropriate statutory powers. That is the purpose of this section.

Mr. Quentin Davies: We have said all along that we do not object to information being provided for the obvious purposes that I have listed. Why does that information have to include personal details? If it does not—if it is only aggregated and impersonal information of the kind to which I referred—why cannot the Government accept our amendment, which offers explicit protection in that regard?

Ms Hewitt: I shall deal immediately with that point. The Contributions Agency currently provides information to the Health and Safety Executive so that it can conduct studies of mortality rates in certain industries, for example. The HSE provides a list of individuals to the Contributions Agency, which asks whether those individuals have died and, if so, the date of death and the office to which any claim for death grant was made prior to 1986. In those cases, the HSE will have the names and, usually, the national insurance numbers of the individuals involved, so it is not a question of the Contributions Agency disclosing individuals' medical records to the HSE without their prompting. The information permits identification of an individual, but only in so far as it relates to individuals whose names are already held by the HSE.
The Contributions Agency needs to be able to respond to the HSE's requests for information. To carry out the epidemiological studies for which it is responsible, it has to have information about actual individuals. If it cannot provide the details to match to the name, which would be the practical effect of the amendment, the work would have to stop.
On the Government Actuary's Department, the Department of Social Security collects statistical information from the national insurance record keeping system and the P14 employer returns—the returns of PAYE tax and national insurance contributions deducted—not least to enable me to answer statistical questions from hon. Members. This information includes personal identification details such as the national insurance number so that longitudinal studies of an individual's history of employment and pensions may be made. Some of that information is passed to the Government Actuary's Department. The identifier in this case is the national insurance number rather than the name or address, but it is unique. There may be two gentlemen called Quentin Davies, but they will have different national insurance numbers.
The Contributions Agency also provides statistical and financial information direct to the Government Actuary's Department to enable it to forecast contributions and contributory benefits. In those cases, and with transfers to the Office for National Statistics, it is highly unlikely that the information would be sufficient to identify individuals.
New section 122AA provides a statutory basis to allow the Inland Revenue to disclose certain information to four organisations to whom the agency already discloses information. It may identify individuals in the sort of situation that I described, but only so far as is necessary for those organisations to carry out their business. I hope that I

have reassured the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary because most of the information will not permit the identification of individuals, while his amendment would prevent the effective operation of, in particular, the HSE. With that reassurance, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am glad that the hon. Lady has evidently thought carefully about this. Once again, the assurances are on the record. It is important for the agencies that will administer the Bill that they should be. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Third Reading debate traditionally provides an opportunity to thank hon. Members who have taken part in our debates. I am grateful for the work and help of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. This has been a good example of joined-up government and of how our Departments work together.
The Bill has also been an interesting example of disjointed opposition. It has rightly been asked why, given the clear Treasury interest in the Bill, and with Social Security and Treasury Ministers working together, no member of the Opposition Treasury team appeared during our deliberations. I can reveal the reason: the shadow Chancellor supports the measure. When the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was challenged on the point by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on Second Reading, he said that the shadow Chancellor's position would become clear when he voted that evening. He was right; it became crystal clear. The shadow Chancellor did not vote that evening. He declined to support his colleagues in the Lobby on Second Reading because he has always been a strong supporter of this measure.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has been indefatigable in his questioning, for which I pay tribute to him. He is also on record as having supported measures along these lines. He put his name to the report last February of the Tax Law Review Committee, which called for a merger of the appeals processes for tax and national insurance. It is difficult to reconcile that with the position that he took in our debates. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to his energy.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has been supportive, if, thankfully, less vociferous. I pay tribute to his diligence, and am pleased that he is in his place. Once we rid the debate on the Bill of the baggage that Conservative Members tried, and failed, to attach to it, we are left with a sensible administrative measure that reduces burdens on business. I have referred several times to the report of the 1994–95 deregulation task force, chaired by the shadow Chancellor, which recommended the merger of the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. That urged the Government to action. The Bill takes forward that action. I urge Conservative Members to join the Government, the business community, the Liberal Democrats and even the shadow Chancellor in supporting the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Quentin Davies: We made clear yesterday what we thought about the Government's project to undermine the national insurance system. We think that it is a very damaging and thoroughly disreputable project which not only breaks the consensus on the national insurance system that has existed since the coalition Government in the second world war, but goes against all the assurances that the Government gave the electorate in the past. As we saw last night, it is much against the principles and conscience of many Labour Members. It is a thoroughly bad project which we shall continue to oppose. We shall have many opportunities to do that in Committee on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which goes upstairs next week.
I do not want to repeat arguments that are important but which the House has heard in the past 24 hours, so I do not believe that there is any useful purpose in proceeding with discussion this evening. This is a very bad Bill for a very bad and nefarious purpose. It does no credit to the Government, who have used every trick in the book to try to disguise from the British public the reality of what is going on.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 89.

Division No. 74]
[6.48 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Browne, Desmond


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Burnett, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burstow, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Menzies (NE File)


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barnes, Harry
Casale, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Cawsey, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Chaytor, David


Beggs, Roy
Church, Ms Judith


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cooper, Yvette


Brake, Tom
Corston, Ms Jean


Brand, Dr Peter
Cranston, Ross


Breed, Colin
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John





Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dafis, Cynog
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Etherington, Bill
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keetch, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Follett, Barbara
Kidney, David


Forsythe, Clifford
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Foulkes, George



Fyfe, Maria
Lepper, David


Gapes, Mike
Leslie, Christopher


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Levitt, Tom


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livsey, Richard


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Llwyd, Elfyn


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Goggins, Paul
Love, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAllion, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McAvoy, Thomas


Gorrie, Donald
McCabe, Steve


Graham, Thomas
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Gunnell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Hanson, David
MacShane, Denis


Harris, Dr Evan
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harvey, Nick
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Home Robertson, John
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hope, Phil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mitchell, Austin


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis






Moore, Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stoate, Dr Howard


Norris, Dan
Stott, Roger


Oaten, Mark
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thompson, William


Pickthall, Colin
Timms, Stephen


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tyler, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Rendel, David
Webb, Steve


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Welsh, Andrew


Roche, Mrs Barbara
White, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Wills, Michael


Salter, Martin
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Shaw, Jonathan
Wood, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Woolas, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, James


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Singh, Marsha
Wyatt, Derek


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mr. Greg Pope and



Mr. Kevin Hughes.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Johnson Smith,


Amess, David
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Baldry, Tony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bercow, John
Lansley, Andrew


Blunt, Crispin
Leigh, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Lidington, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Major, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mates, Michael


Burns, Simon
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
Moss, Malcolm


Cash, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Norman, Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Ottaway, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) 
Page, Richard



Pickles, Eric


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Randall, John


Collins, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Ruffley, David


Cran, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


Curry, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Shepherd, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Garnier, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Townend, John


Gray, James
Trend, Michael


Green, Damian
Viggers, Peter


Greenway, John
Walter, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Waterson, Nigel


Hague, Rt Hon William
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Willetts, David


Hammond, Philip
Wilshire, David


Hawkins, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hayes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Heald, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael



Horam, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sir David Madel and


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the start of the debate, will you clarify the exact process whereby declarations of interest, specifically with regard to the City of London corporation, should be made before contributions are made to the debate? In particular, I refer you to the code of conduct together with the "Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members", which says on page 8, in paragraph 11:
Any Member having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered, shall not undertake any action, speech or proceeding of the House (save voting) to which the registration would be relevant until notification has been given to the Commissioner for Standards of that interest.
As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are various categories, including a miscellaneous category that covers any relevant interests not falling into the other categories, as well as gifts, benefits and hospitality.
Will you rule whether being a Freemason falls within any of those categories, in particular the miscellaneous category, and is therefore an interest that should be registered and declared by a Member and, if it is not declared, that Member should not be taking part in this debate, save by voting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a matter on which I can rule at this point. Any further clarification that is required on the standards to be observed by hon. Members must come from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not from the Chair on an occasion such as this.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like clarification. It has been alleged that the Bill—and therefore the debate—contravenes the first protocol of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, which was conferred into British law by this Parliament after the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. That protocol relates to the right to free elections. It states in article 3:
The High Contracting Parties"—
the United Kingdom Government—
undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people"—
not business—
in the choice of the legislature.
The issue is that, our having passed the convention into UK law, the Bill is in contravention of the Human Rights Act and the debate is therefore illegal. I ask for your ruling on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair to make that determination. It is a matter for the courts. The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make as a point of order can certainly be raised in the debate.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you therefore clarify the

Speaker's role in guiding the House on any illegal activity? Surely it is a matter for the Speaker to ensure that the House remains within its powers and does not overstep any international commitments or legislation that we have signed up to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman flatters the Chair in thinking that the Chair can rule on such matters. The role of the Chair is entirely to rule on matters of order in this House, dealing with the business that comes before the House for debate. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is outside my capacity.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to remain on the record that the House could be in any way conducting an illegal sitting or proceedings. The House of Commons is entirely sovereign and we are duly elected to represent our constituents. It should not be thought for a minute that the House could in any way act illegally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that no such implication was made in the exchanges so far.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, there was no such implication. However, we have enacted the human rights legislation, and it makes illegal any act in the United Kingdom that is in contravention of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms or the furtherance of any such act. It is therefore important that, before the debate proceeds further, we should have clear guidance, if necessary from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I accept that this body is sovereign, and in our sovereignty, we passed the human rights legislation, this time last year, to sign up to the protocol. It is therefore critical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now clearly straying into the realms of debate. He may have an opportunity to catch my eye if he wishes to develop that argument, but the Bill before us has patently not yet been passed into legislation. If there were any suggestion that it was incompatible with other legislation, that would be a matter for the courts, certainly not for the Chair on this occasion.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to strain your patience—you have been exceptionally good to me so far.
The debate takes place under Standing Order No. 20 of "Standing Orders of the House of Commons—Public Business 1999". The Bill is private business and the Standing Order relates to private business. The motion in my name and that of my hon. Friends to delay consideration of the Bill proposes:
That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
I accept that, under Standing Order No. 20, it is open to the Chairman of Ways and Means to appoint business, but will you clarify the grounds on which the Bill has been timetabled for consideration today and what reasons there are for doing so before the end of the six-month period?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely within the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means when to


set down business for consideration, and that cannot be questioned on a point of order. I have made a ruling and determination that this is the evening on which the Bill should be considered, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any method by which the Chair must explain his or her ruling on those matters and the grounds on which that timetabling has been decided, and other business has not been given priority? I would welcome, as I am sure other hon. Members would, the opportunity to debate that procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, there is no such opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise decisions of the Chair, he must do so on a substantive motion. I am merely trying better to order the business that comes before the House. Certain slots have to be provided for the disposal of private business, and I have tried to discharge that function in a perfectly impartial way.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No criticism was intended; I am engaged in an honest search for the truth and clarification, and I thank you for that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Many things in the City of London have a very long history. The local electoral system dealt with in the Bill is certainly one of them. In recent times, the shortcomings of the system have been the subject of some criticism—shortcomings that have been recognised by the City corporation itself.
Dealing with those shortcomings legislatively has, however, been less straightforward, but it is what the corporation seeks to do in the measure. It does so in the context that none of the political parties now has a policy of abolishing the corporation, so the issue is one of reform and of how the City's various interests may be more evenly represented.
Although the Bill is corrective in nature, it would be quite wrong to infer that local government in the City has failed to work. The reverse is the case. The common council, which discharges the local authority functions in the City, is widely credited for its innovative activities. Indeed, one of the foundations of the success of the City as the leading international financial centre is the support that is given by its own dedicated local authority, to which the present Prime Minister testified in a lecture in the City in September 1996.
The corporation's support for democratic rights also has a long history. This speech is not the occasion for that trawl through history, but it is perhaps worth recalling that the passage of the Great Reform Bill of 1832 through the House followed strident petitions to Parliament from the City civic urging those reforms.
The last royal commission on London local government, which sat for three years between 1957 and 1960—perhaps I should declare an interest and say that it

was appointed by my father—recognised the distinct nature of local government in the City, and recommended its retention.
The approach of the commission has been continued by the present Government. In their Green Paper "New Leadership for London", the Government stated in paragraphs 1.10:
We have made it clear that we do not intend to abolish the City Corporation. In recent years the City Corporation has sought to play a much more positive role in order to promote inward investment and to fund schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole. The Corporation has assured the Government that it will continue to develop this work and has accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements.
Paragraph 1.11 continues:
The Corporation is currently devising detailed proposals to improve its franchise, including that for Aldermen, so that it represents more accurately the various interests in the Square Mile".

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brooke: I had not quite finished shall give way when I have done so.
The Green Paper goes on:
We look forward to detailed discussion with the Autumn.
I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend mentioned aldermanic elections. A friend of mine, Mr. Malcolm Matson, was elected in an entirely proper way by his ward to the aldermanic bench. Then, for no good reason that I can divine, he was prevented from taking his place on the aldermanic bench. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Bill goes through, that unfortunate state of affairs cannot arise again?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I, too, know Mr. Matson, and have known him for a long time. My hon. Friend describes accurately the circumstances of that episode. It is the case—arising not out of the Bill, but out of the rules of the City corporation—that such an event will not occur again. I can confirm that to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Throughout the rest of local government, aldermen have been abolished. Does the Bill contain provision for that, and if not, should it include such provision?

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. As local government in the City of London goes back many centuries before it was developed in other parts of the country, the tradition of aldermen is a particularly old one in the City—older than in much local government that was formed in the 19th century. The royal commission to which I referred acknowledged that the City of London was different from other local government, it acknowledged that the City was an anomaly, and it argued that it should continue to exist, with reform. When aldermen were abolished elsewhere by legislation in the 1970s, the aldermen in the City of London were retained and are not affected by the Bill.
The discussions referred to in the Green Paper have taken place and have been fruitful. The White Paper entitled, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" records in paragraphs 1.25 and 1.26:
In New Leadership for London we made it clear that we do not propose to abolish the City Corporation. In reaching this decision we were relying upon the assurance that the Corporation would continue its work in promoting inward investment and financing studies for the benefit of London as a whole, and had accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements. The Corporation has produced its own proposals for reform which have been the subject of consultation and discussion with those who live in the City and the variety of bodies which operate there.

Mr. McDonnell: I sit with the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill, and am now the secretary of his fan club because of his articulateness in that Committee.
On the statement by the Labour party before the election, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the commitment not to abolish the City corporation was conditional on adequate reform proposals being brought forward as a result of the Bill, and that if adequate proposals are not brought forward during this Parliament or this Government's term of office, abolition may well proceed? The reforms must therefore be genuine, proper and democratic.

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I made the mistake of not completing the quotation before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, as I did in the case of my hon. Friend. However, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. I am not, of course, privy to what went on in the Labour party in the run-up to the election. I detect, however, that the City corporation got the message that was being communicated to the City about the need to reform its electoral arrangements. The corporation has presented the proposals to the Government in order to verify that the Government were seeking that degree of electoral reform.
It may be helpful if I quote the paragraph in the White Paper, which states:
These proposals involve both reforming the existing franchise in order to prevent abuse and the extension of the electoral system to give a wider variety of bodies and organisations voting rights within the Square Mile. We shall continue to maintain an interest in the Corporation's proposals for reforming its franchise as they develop.
In that sense, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—we are in real-time business.
I happily give way to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will know as well as any of us that there has never been any change in our electoral system without a Speaker's Conference. It has always been understood that the Boundary Commission and electoral reform of all kinds have developed in this way. Can he explain to the House what it is about the City that allows it to change its own electoral system, without considering the impact that that would have on the rest of the country, or the interests of the parties involved? What gives the City the right to draft its own constitution? Is it a city state? Is it an offshore island? What is the status of the City that allows it even to contemplate such a change?

Mr. Brooke: I take the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have had the pleasure of listening

to many of his speeches down the years. The fact that the City was so early into democratic principles—much earlier, I fear, than even Parliament—means that much of what we are discussing is hallowed, but there is a charter going back to the reign of Edward III in 1341.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were discussing the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, I raised with him the fact that he had omitted from his list of House of Lords reforms the 1857 proposal that there should be life peers in the House of Lords, which was defeated in the House of Lords. It was in exactly the same year that the last comprehensive reform of the City of London occurred.
The ability for modification has persisted. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet in 1969, three wards of the City of London had their boundaries altered within the City, without reference to the Boundary Commission. I am not in any way holding him responsible for that—it would not naturally have fallen to the Postmaster General, although in a funny sort of way it might have done, because postcodes might well have been involved. It has been a persistent fact that the City has that ability.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Representation of the People Act 1948, which abolished the business vote, is to be repealed in part by this Bill, which will restore the business vote in contradistinction of the law laid down for the whole country by the post-war Parliament?

Mr. Brooke: I am very hesitant to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, whose historical knowledge is much greater than mine. In 1948, neither he nor I was in the House of Commons, but he was a member of the Cabinet in 1969 when the business vote was taken away in local government elections. There is a slight hazard in his using parliamentary elections as a read-across into what happened within the City of London. When the 1969 Act was passed, the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Callaghan, specifically accepted the business vote in the City and retained it because the City was different from other entities of local government. In that respect, he was echoing the judgment of Lord Herbert in the royal commission approximately a decade earlier.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Having heard almost "The Guinness Book of Records" number of points of order, I wondered whether my right hon. Friend could help me. If the Bill is passed, will more or fewer people living and working in the City of London be entitled to vote for the common council?

Mr. Brooke: The number of people who will cast votes in the City of London will go up substantially. The number of residents voting will be the same as the number of residents allowed to vote now, but the number of people voting will rise by 39,000.

Dr. Brian Iddon: What is the percentage of the total votes that residents would have in future, compared with now? Would it remain the same, would it go up—or would it go down, as I suspect is the case?

Mr. Brooke: In the natural order of things, and in the light of the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member


for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the percentage of votes cast by residents would fall if the number of residents' votes does not go up, and the number of business votes does go up. However, it is not quite as simple as that. The residential vote is concentrated largely in certain wards, where the percentage of votes held by residents will continue at the same level. Therefore, no change will occur in terms of the election result.

Mr. Iain Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the percentage figure in terms of resident voters will fall from one in four now to less than one in 10?

Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman is approximately right. However, that does not contradict the points that I have made to the hon. Member for Bolton, SouthEast (Dr. Iddon), who asked me about the percentage of residential votes. As residential votes are primarily concentrated in what I might call certain residential wards, their ability to influence the corporation will be exactly the same as before, because residents will cast votes in the wards where they are very much predominant.
I was saying that the proposals before the House deal primarily with how a wider range of bodies and organisations are, consistent with the comments in the White Paper, to be given voting rights. Because the City is overwhelmingly a place for doing business, it is inevitable that the business dimension will be prominent. The wholly atypical nature of the City hardly needs restating, having been recognised by the last royal commission, the local government commission and by the 1969 Labour Government, to which I referred in response to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when they kept the business vote of the City while abolishing it elsewhere.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to ration the hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly clear from his points of order that he has a profound interest in this subject. Of course I shall give way.

Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the City is profoundly atypical, yet in my constituency is a location called Stockley park, a vast expanse of land containing numerous businesses but only two residents. It is as atypical as the City because it deals with almost as many individual companies pro rata within a smaller area. On that basis, would the right hon. Gentleman advocate a business vote within that area, and therefore the withdrawal of the democratic right of individuals to control the area via their local authority?

Mr. Brooke: I respond gingerly to that question, in case you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should rule me out of order, for the hon. Gentleman takes me into the realms of the total reform of local government. Moreover, he turns

his back on the noble Lord Callaghan, who specifically singled out the City from every other local authority in the country.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, provided that I can remember my place in my speech.

Mr. Bradley: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the proposition that he made a couple of minutes ago that, as residents of the City of London are concentrated in certain wards, their democratic leverage on the corporation of London is somehow enhanced? I took my time considering this and cast my mind back over the 10 years that I spent on the other most democratic local authority in the country, the City of Westminster, to see whether, in my experience, his proposition was correct. Does not the fact that there will be 39,000 additional electors—all members of the business rather than the residential community—outweigh any leverage that 5,000 people, no matter how concentrated they are in certain wards, have over the policy making of the corporation of London?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I was making. I am grateful to him for his remark about Westminster, which enables me to mention briefly what I left out of my draft. I referred earlier to the 1832 reform Bill. So liberal was the franchise in Westminster in the run-up to the 1832 Bill that after it had been passed the people of Westminster still had a more generous franchise than the rest of the country was getting under the Bill.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, the point remains exactly the same: the proportion of members of the common council representing residential wards will be the same in the new common council as it was in the old, because members will continue to be elected for the residential ward. To be fair to myself, I do not think that I used the word "enhanced". I was saying that their position was effectively unchanged by the move.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Westminster, I shall return to my speech, in which I was about to make a comparison with Westminster. May I give a flavour of the distinctiveness by reference to figures taken from the two halves of my constituency? In the W1 postal district I have as many businesses as I have households. Obviously, there are a number of wards in that area. In the City, 50 times as many people are engaged in business as there are electors. The density of employees per square kilometre is more than 88,500 in the City, whereas in Westminster it is 22,325, or approximately a quarter.
The proposals in the Bill are novel, but they deal with a novel situation. They build on the existing business franchise. Clauses 1 and 2 set out the short title and define the terms used in the Bill. Clause 3, which is the principal provision, replaces the existing residential and business electoral qualifications with the qualifications in subsections (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c). Subsection (1)(b) is straightforward and deals with the residential voter. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) deal with the business or commercial voter. The subsections have a common thread, which is that personal physical presence for what


the Bill terms "relevant purposes" is needed. The relevant purposes in the context of the Bill will normally be business purposes.
In the case of an individual in business on his own account as a sole proprietor or partner, that individual will have to satisfy the requirement of personal physical presence—that is, he must actually work in the City. In the case of an incorporated body—usually a limited company—or an unincorporated body, the personal physical presence must be satisfied by those representing or working for the company in the City. In other words, companies cannot be "shells". They must have people working on the premises—[Interruption.] I see the pleasure that that thought gives the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Dr. Iddon: My question is simple: could such persons work in the City for only one day?

Mr. Brooke: No, not for only one day. To respond with intellectual honesty to the hon. Gentleman's question, I should say that the figure goes down to a rateable value of £200, but £200 is calculated as being the rateable value that someone is required to have in order to have a person working in the City, even if he is working as a single individual. One day would not be sufficient. Indeed, the rateable value has been chosen to get away from transient problems, which other proposals might have involved.
In the case of an individual—

Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I have started on this paragraph so I shall finish it, as I have a degree of curiosity about what is at the end of the speech myself.
An individual in business on his own account as sole proprietor or partner must have people working on the premises. That approach prevents giving the vote to notional occupiers—I should not have allowed the hon. Member for Bolton, SouthEast to interrupt me at the moment he did—which is a distortion that can arise under the current system.
I should also mention that subsection (4) makes it clear that no individual can vote more than once, whatever the capacity by which he satisfies the electoral qualifications. That cures another latent defect in the present system. That will please the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, although it is not matched in the affairs of this House. If there are two by-elections on one day in different parts of the country, and a particular individual has a vote in both places, he is, under the laws of the land, able to exercise both votes, but he cannot vote more than once in each of the elections.
Clause 3(2) sets the period of currency for the new ward lists as annually beginning with 16 February. That aligns the City with the general law in the Representation of the People Acts. There are consequential amendments on dates in schedule 2. The administration of the City's system, particularly the compilation of the provisional ward lists, has, however, required the setting of a somewhat earlier qualifying date for entry on the ward lists–1 September as opposed to 10 October, under the general law—to enable the operative date for the annual ward lists to coincide with the national scheme.
Apart from dealing with various exceptional circumstances relating to multiple occupation, schedule 1 sets out the entitlement of limited companies and other qualifying bodies, as the Bill terms them, to appoint individuals to vote. The basic requirement is that a company—

Ms Karen Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I will, of course, give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

Ms Buck: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind. Will he confirm that voters, as opposed to the occupiers who nominate them, need not be workers in the City or, indeed, need never have set foot in the City, which they will then purport to represent?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady makes a correct statement, but—not least because of pressure from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), whose intervention I have been constantly expecting as the debate has progressed and which I am confident that I shall, in due course, receive—the code by which qualifying bodies will choose the people who will cast their votes for them will be made public. That code carries with it the "Clapham omnibus", sensible and reasonable assumption that people will be chosen who actually have something to do with the City, for there would be little point in putting them on the body if they did not.
The basic requirement is that a company will be entitled to appoint individuals according to the rateable value of the premises occupied. Up to a rateable value of £10,000, they will be entitled to appoint one individual. Over that figure, and up to £1 million, there will be an entitlement to appoint additional individuals based on £10,000 rateable value bands. Over £1 million, they will be entitled to appoint additional individuals based on £100,000 rateable value bands. That, therefore, gives a taper to the entitlement.
The standard local government qualification—

Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely patient; he might have drawn my attention to the fact that I had completed the paragraph.

Mr. Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not intervene to show that he was not showing favour to his parliamentary neighbour. May I confirm that hon. Members always enjoy his contributions, so we will be listening carefully through to the end?
You have laid out for us the basis of the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he should be addressing the right hon. Gentleman, not the Chair.

Mr. Love: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman has laid out for us the basis of the new franchise, which will concentrate control in the hands of business, but the City of London authority is a local government authority. It provides a considerable


number of services to those who live in the City. If the franchise is to be changed in such a way, is not there an argument that the authority should no longer be part of local government, as it has been in the past?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman takes me into a semantic jungle that I am ill-equipped to traverse, but in any Bill applying to the City of London—when he has seen as many Bills as I have, he will begin to learn the phrase-there is always a separate, particular and specific reference to the City of London, because it is not a local authority like any other. That is a statutory observation, not simply something born of Lord Herbert's decision in the royal commission.
The standard local government qualifications governing aspects such as nationality will apply to all electors. In other words, the voting rights will be the same as for local government elections. The system proposed acknowledges that the rating list is a convenient source, and that the size of premises bears some relationship to what the occupier pays in rates for the premises and also to the number of people likely to be working there.
Clause 4 deals with the procedures by which—

Mr. Peter Bradley: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify one issue? If the building is vacant and no one is working there, but the landlord is paying rates, will he still be entitled to the same franchise as someone who is trading from a building?

Mr. Brooke: No. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been hanging on my every word, but there must have been a moment in which he missed a sentence of mine. I have specifically said that an empty building would not have representation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I delayed until the last possible moment before intervening.
I have two specific questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a matter of law, in the Bill as drafted, it is entirely up to what the Bill describes as the qualifying body to decide how to allocate its votes? For example, it could raffle them. Secondly, will he confirm that there is nothing to prevent someone being nominated by a qualifying body, even if he works for the City of London—the corporation—or has some commercial interest linked to it?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in respect of his first question, although anyone who engaged in a raffle would have to pay attention, not only to the laws relating to raffles, but to those relating to criminal proceedings in British elections. That would be a slightly hazardous way of choosing a candidate.
I may have to respond later, under advisement, to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am not conscious of a restraint in respect of the individual, although I think that he should be an employee. Even on that I am not certain, so I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising the question.
Clause 4 deals with the procedures by which the individuals appointed to vote will be entered on the ward lists. The town clerk, who is responsible for administration of electoral matters, will undertake inquiries to identify the

qualifying bodies and will request details from them about their appointments. The individuals concerned will then be entered on the ward lists.
Clauses 5 and 6 and schedule 2 deal with amendments and repeals and a saving for elections to be held under the current system before the new ward lists become operational. Some aspects of the reforms are not dealt with in the Bill. That is because they are being provided for through the City's legislative powers, about which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked me earlier. The corporation will deploy those powers to provide for four-year terms of election, consistent with the arrangements in London boroughs. The date of ward elections will be aligned with the election season for the boroughs; elections in the City currently take place in December.
The corporation will examine the ways in which turnout may be enhanced by means of practical voting arrangements, including the location of polling stations. That, too, was a worry for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The corporation has already said that it will publish a code of practice on the appointment of individuals to vote by qualifying bodies, and work on that is in hand. In the corporation's view, it is appropriate for the allocation of appointments to reflect the nature of the organisation and its work force, including its gender mix. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
I should refer specifically to the position of residents. A number of Labour Members have already given me ample opportunities to do so. Under the existing system, some wards in the City are predominantly residential. The corporation recognises, and has always recognised, that the interests of residents should be maintained in the new system; therefore, the system has been designed to ensure that wards that are predominantly residential in character remain so. Likewise, the corporation will review the distribution of voting capacity in each ward, with the aim of ensuring the maintenance of a reasonable balance between the size of wards and their electorate.

Mr. Benn: May I take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about the interests of the business community in the City? Can he assure us that every shareholder in businesses there will have an opportunity to vote, and to determine who should vote on his or her behalf? One shareholder, one vote: that is the one principle that I want the right hon. Gentleman to establish.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to learn that the right hon. Gentleman still espouses the principle of one man, one vote. I understand that the Labour party no longer espouses that principle in internal elections in certain parts of the country.
I have already said that the decision on who will vote will be made by the businesses concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the element of the business that is in the City may be only a small part of a much larger business. Although 118 of the 500 largest companies in the European Union have their headquarters in the City, there are many small businesses there as well, and I feel that a shareholder system would be unwieldy.
Considerable efforts have been made to involve, and seek the views of, City residents, and the corporation has no evidence to suggest that there is a significant amount


of dissatisfaction with what is being proposed. Let me add that the proposals are not intended, or expected, to have any effects on services provided from funds outside the local government finance system, such as the provision for open spaces for which the City is responsible.

Mr. McDonnell: The corporation has asserted that there is no substantial opposition to the proposals. In fact, petitions have been received opposing the Bill; but, in any event, has the City organised a ballot of residents? If so, have the results been published? Has there been any consultation of the electorate of Greater London overall?

Mr. Brooke: I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions, but I think that the idea of involving the whole of Greater London in the decision is a bit rich. As for the question of consultation, the corporation publishes a magazine called City Review, which is widely distributed and which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has seen. It is published every two months, and for the past 18 months or so every issue has contained references to the Bill, and invitations to readers to write in. It has produced a booklet, which I have here. People have written, and there has been an opportunity for discussions with residents. Any resident who was not aware of what was going on must be living a somewhat hermit-like life.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I do not want people to forget what I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened. I have been pretty generous to him. Let me finish what I was saying about open spaces.
Open spaces such as Epping forest are subject to statutory protection through legislation promoted by the corporation itself, which demands that they be maintained and conserved to a high standard. That legislation is unaffected by the Bill, and the corporation has no intention of changing it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As Epping forest is in my constituency, this concerns me very much. The right hon. Gentleman says that the legislation will not change; but will the money change? If there were more members of the common council interested only in keeping costs down in the centre, with no commitment to open spaces outside the centre, could they, under the proposed voting system, have more power to cut financial support for the open spaces?

Mr. Brooke: I was going to deal with the money aspect, because I knew that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about it. I can say, however, that in addition to the many initiatives, costing about £40 million a year, that the City maintains—initiatives that are available to everyone in London, which are supported by the City fund and include the Barbican—there is a separate resource, known as City's cash, consisting of the accumulated wealth of merchants who have left money to the City for eight centuries. It is with some of that money that Epping forest is maintained. Although councillors will continue to take an interest, and, presumably, will make decisions, the funds supporting Epping forest are nothing to do with local government finance.
Although the expenditure involved in administering open spaces and the like outside the City does not constitute public expenditure, I am advised that the corporation will make available the annual estimates for them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) will be able to see those estimates.
The Bill is the culmination of wide-ranging consultation within the City business community, and with residents, as well as with the Government and other interested parties. It offers a solution that, in the corporation's view, addresses the particular circumstances of the City, consistent with the White Paper.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am the first listed objector to the Bill, but I presume that others will wish to speak.
I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) expressed his support for the Bill. He accepted a number of interventions, and tried to respond to them. At one point, he said that he wanted to get on because he wanted to find out how his speech would end. We are pleased to have heard the end of the speech—but I am not sure that it was worth it.
The last time I crossed swords with the right hon. Gentleman on a private Bill was when he sponsored a Bill that related to the City of Westminster. I spoke against it for nearly three hours. I do not intend to speak for anywhere near that long tonight, but as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I recalled that his Bill dealt with a number of businesses in Westminster, such as porn shops. I wondered whether, if the principles being applied to the business community of the City of London—allowing that community all the votes—applied to Westminster, the right hon. Gentleman would represent the porn shops.
The Bill creates a huge democratic deficit. In fact, "deficit" is a kind description; it is really a democratic negation. My hon. Friends will say more about this, but the City of London Labour party has pointed out that the residents' share of the franchise will fall from its current 25 per cent. or thereabouts to less than 10 per cent., and that voters could be nominated by occupiers or agents who might live anywhere: they might not even be United Kingdom citizens, and might not even have set foot in the City of London.
The City of London Labour party also points out that there are no guarantees in the Bill for residents, and that their position will be worse. It states:
Business interests should not be allowed to override those of residents, as they do now, in matters like planning, traffic and the environment.
That is a fair point. Like any other local authority, the court of common council will discuss those local issues: planning, traffic, the environment in the City. It should be the residents—because they are the ones who will be affected by decisions in the main—who exercise that democratic element.
Mention was made of representations by Malcolm Matson. I have his letter. Presumably, it was sent to other hon. Members.

Mr. Baldry: In certain parts of the City, there are practically no residents. For example, the ward of


Farringdon Without has a substantial electoral roll, but it is made up mostly of members in the Temple, and people working in Smithfield and a diversity of other trades. There are few residents, so how will such an area in London and the City be properly represented? Who will represent it? Who will vote in that ward? Will it be left just as a void, or will residents in some other part of the City be expected, under the hon. Gentleman's ideas, to represent the people who live and work in Farringdon Without?

Mr. Cohen: I am surprised at that intervention. The key principle is that residents should be the voters, rather than businesses, which are in many ways absent in terms of business interests; perhaps their headquarters are elsewhere, too. However, some constituencies for this Parliament are very far flung because that is the way in which we achieve an equal number of residents voting. I do not see why all the wards have to be of an equal size in any system. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point applies.
Mr. Matson sent a letter on the Bill to hon. Members. It said:
the Corporation of London wants to extend … the undemocratic 'business vote'.
Actually the proposal is even more bizarre.
The Bill is the first retreat from the principle of universal suffrage since the Reform Act of 1832 … which began a long march to 'one person one vote'.
The Bill will give votes to companies and other bodies according to the rateable value of their offices. The higher the rateable value the more votes they will get.
For the first time in a modern western democracy you will be able to buy as many votes in an election for a local authority as you can afford—just keep on adding to your property portfolio!
He calls on us to stop "the last rotten borough". That is a good summary of what I politely describe as the democratic deficit. My hon. Friends will want to say more about that, but the corporation of London should rethink that aspect.
As I have said, there are no guarantees to residents, but nor are there any guarantees to those who enjoy open spaces that are outside the City of London, but which are owned and run by the corporation. My main reason for objecting to the Bill—it is not just the democratic deficit—involves the representations that I have received from the Open Spaces Society.
Bernard Selwyn, honorary parliamentary consultant of the society, said that the Bill could affect the character of the court of common council and how the corporation's extra-mural duties are carried out, including, of course, those on Epping forest. He says that some constituencies have
open spaces outside the City which the Corporation has acquired and been proudly and conscientiously maintaining for many years.
I agree. It has done a relatively good job. He says that those open spaces could be put at risk.
Mr. Selwyn adds that the corporation is responsible for the London metropolitan archives, that they should be protected, and that assurances should be given on them as well. He says:
Over 40,000 new business votes will be created, but some of the existing votes are expected to be replaced by them so that the total electorate will reduce to more than 54,000 of which some 49,000 will be business voters.

He goes on to say:
Many of the qualifying bodies will be foreign and have no attachment to London except as a financial centre. While we hope that they will take some pride in the traditions and wider interests of the City, some may only wish to ensure that any money raised by rates or from other sources is not used more than can be avoided for purposes of no benefit to themselves, and they may seek to appoint representatives who have no personal connection with London and can be trusted to vote and even stand as candidates for election to the common council solely to protect the selfish concerns of the body appointing them.
That is my concern. If we get more people with that selfish interest, who will be on the common council to stop them spending money on open spaces or to restrict it?
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was right to say that the councillors make the decisions on the Epping forest land for which they are responsible, but it will be councillors with that pressure on them—with that electorate. They may say, "That is something that we are not interested in."

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may have missed a sentence that I said in response to a question that he had asked me. Epping forest is not paid for out of the rates. The pressure that he is describing would not apply in the context of Epping forest. Ever since the City saved it from enclosure in 1878 and subsequently doubled it in size, the forest has been paid for by separate City funds.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I heard what he said about City's cash, which presumably is a separate fund, but he said that councillors take the decisions regarding Epping forest. Those councillors will have an electorate who may not be interested in Epping forest, so that is the main basis of my objection. I look to protect the interests of my constituents who enjoy Epping forest land. I am grateful that the corporation of London has run it relatively well up to now, but I want that to be maintained and improved.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman fairly concedes that the City has looked after places such as Epping forest and Burnham Beeches very well. How will the Bill change that? Already on the court of common council there are business people, men and women. The difficulty at the moment is that the franchise is restricted to certain trades because of the nature of the franchise. There are butchers, barristers and chartered accountants, but those people have not restricted the money that is spent on Burnham Beeches and Epping forest. So why, if one extends the franchise to encompass all sorts of other trading activities in the City, should the City somehow become more selfish and more inward looking?

Mr. Cohen: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I have not been critical of the corporation of London. In certain respects, I have—in individual cases where I do not think that it has done a good enough job for my local area—but the general point is that it has run matters well. However, we will have an altered balance of the franchise and businesses. Some will have foreign interests, as the Open Spaces Society has said, little interest in the City and even less interest in the area outside the City for which the corporation is responsible.
The hon. Gentleman may be right in suggesting that the policy will not change. I certainly hope that that is the case, but by changing the franchise it puts at risk that


commitment. That is why I object—to ensure that that commitment is absolutely maintained. That is my main concern.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise for the fact that, although I have been here for all the hon. Gentleman's speech, I was late in arriving.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the businesses may be owned outside the United Kingdom, the people whom they will be nominating to vote—

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Lait: May I finish my point? The people whom those business will be nominating to vote have to be qualified to vote in a British election. Although they have to be either British citizens, European Union citizens or Commonwealth citizens, they have to live here, too. They are therefore not people who will have been parachuted in for the pleasure of sitting in on endless common council meetings.

Mr. Cohen: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but the Open Spaces Society does not agree with it. The society stated that the businesses that will now have the vote
may seek to appoint representatives who have no personal connection with London and can be trusted to vote and even stand as candidates for election to the common council solely to protect the selfish concerns of the body appointing them.
That is a very real concern to the Open Spaces Society.
I am therefore not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—that the new representatives will be dead keen to live in the City, to be active there and to work 100 per cent. in the City's best interests. I am certainly not convinced that they will automatically be interested in the City's functions outside the square mile. I also suspect that they will not be much interested in the Epping forest land in my constituency—but I am. I am very concerned about it, as are my constituents. We want to ensure that we receive assurances that the current commitment will be maintained and even increased.

Mr. McDonnell: It is critical that we clarify the point. I have searched the Bill, and—as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the letters he is quoting from the City of London Labour party and the Open Spaces Society—it would impose no residency condition. There is no residency qualification.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the point.
The Open Spaces Society points out that the corporation is responsible for the management and conservation of more than 10,000 acres—more than 15 square miles—of open space. Those spaces are paid for out of the City's cash account—the private fund which

has been built over the centuries and was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Mr. Selwyn said:
However, we regret that no accounts of this fund are published although the expenditure has to be approved by the common council and the duties are subject to statutory requirements.
I heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on annual estimates. Although that concession is welcome, it is wrong for there to be such secrecy surrounding details of the fund, which is so important to Londoners. The matter should be opened up.
I should like to provide an example—in which my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction might be quite interested—of the effects of the secrecy. The Government have a new deal policy, in which one option for young people is to serve on an environmental task force, doing environmental work. The City of London corporation should want to assist the Government in the project. Perhaps we should expect the corporation to help financially with the project. However, the corporation might say, "We don't have the funds to do it", or, "We're not really interested in helping the Government or in getting young people into training and working on an environmental task force." All the time, it could be sitting on top of secret funds totalling millions of pounds, which could be helping young people and the Government's policy. That is only one example of why there should be accountability of and transparency in City's cash.
The public might have some interest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point on that matter, which seems to fall well outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying only that there should be some transparency and accountability about City's cash. The new representatives, who will be elected on the basis of the new franchise, might say, "We don't have the money to maintain current open-spaces policies and commitments", whereas in secret they will have the money. I think that people should know the exact situation.
I should like to deal with a few local issues, if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so—I know that they would like to return to the main issue of the democratic deficit. Nevertheless, there are a few constituency matters in relation to the open spaces and the corporation's policies. I should like to mention some of them, not least because I might get them in the local newspapers and please the local residents.
The Hollow pond is run by the City of London corporation, at Whipps Cross, and is heavily used. Parts of it have become quite barren, and it requires proper replanting. There should be a better policy to that end. The land is used very heavily, proportionately more than other parts of Epping forest. Moreover, there has been much work on the M11 link road in the neighbouring area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has flagged this section of his speech too obviously, as it were. I really cannot accept that it is within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In his reply, I should like to hear from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster how the new franchise and election of a new common council will impact on those local issues. That information would interest my constituents, who clearly want the Hollow pond at Whipps Cross to be maintained and improved. The pond that has dried up and was just left at the junction—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now acting in defiance of my ruling. I tell him that the matter is outwith this debate. He has made his point generally, which is permissible, but he is now going far too far.

Mr. Cohen: I shall not pursue the matter further today, but I will pursue it in writing with the corporation, as it affects my constituents—such as an individual who wants, for example, to locate a bench with a plaque to his mother, but has been turned down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood my ruling. I make it quite clear that he will be out of order if he continues on the same line.

Mr. Cohen: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not do it again.
All these matters show the importance to my area—and many other areas of London—of maintaining the corporation's open spaces commitment. I have, up to now, had no quibble with the policy—other than those little individual ones, about which I shall be writing. However, the little matters also clarify the general issue, which is that we want the common council to maintain and improve the policy. The assurances that I seek are therefore vital. I remain concerned that the franchise change will worsen the situation for those who, like my constituents and others, enjoy open spaces. It is also important to have greater accountability.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be extremely brief, as I am trying to set an example of brief speeches. No one pays any attention, but I hope that it will assist anyway.
I speak in the debate not because I have any political interests or ambitions in London; my only political ambition is to complete one term as Member of Parliament for Tatton. There are, however, some important issues of democracy in the Bill, and the people of Tatton have shown rather clearly that they care a great deal about that. We are grateful especially to Mr. Matson for pointing out that this is a suggested retreat from the principle of the universal franchise and we should think very seriously before we go along with that retreat.
It has been a long march since the Reform Act 1832, with many difficulties, adversities, stops and obstacles along the way—one of which has been the property qualification. It is strange to see that that remains in any form to this day—yet it does, in that there are 5,000 residents of the City of London who are entitled to vote because they are residents, and 15,000 people who work there who are entitled to vote because they have offices there. It would be bad enough if all we were doing was

perpetuating that—but we are extending it. We are proposing to add another 35,000 or 39,000 on an extraordinary principle.

Mr. McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman is well travelled, and has gained his reputation from reporting from cities across the world. Is there any city of which he is aware where the franchise is given to the business vote—not as a business district or as a section of a community overlaid by a democratic body, but in its own right?

Mr. Bell: I have covered elections in about 20 different countries and in none of them have I found such an archaic and strange way of voting as that which we are discussing tonight. The proposed system involves a vote for £10,000 of rateable value; two votes for £20,000; three votes for £30,000; 100 votes for £1 million. What is this—votes for sale? Can we not buy them over the counter at Harrods? It is extraordinary, and out of keeping with the kilter of the times.
It is suggested that we are being asked tonight to vote for a world-class City, but that is what we already have. We need a world-class City with democratic institutions from end to end, and that is not on offer in the Bill.
It may be said that the present system, even as amended—and the amendment is worse than the original proposal—is at least quaint and British, and that it sort of works. However, we are saying that about the House of Lords, and the reason we are in the process of ending the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords is because it is undemocratic. The reason we need full democracy in the City of London is because the proposed system is undemocratic. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members consider the Bill well, and vote as far as is possible in a free vote. The Bill is undemocratic, anti-democratic and oligarchic, and we should have nothing to do with it—except to reject it.

Mr. Tony Benn: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on a speech of great charm, skill and knowledge. I congratulate him also on extending the principle of the private finance initiative to the electoral system. With the help of private capital, you can get more voters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I suppose that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not adopting the full principle that instead of an election, a ward councillor's job would be put out to tender. That would be the simplest thing. Then, on polling day, the common clerk would announce the bids that had been submitted. That would save the cost of the election and would introduce a system in line with the philosophy that is becoming more widespread.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction on the Front Bench because, knowing as I do Government Front Benchers' commitment to modernisation and democracy, I know that he will advise the House to reject the Bill, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). It is an act of brazen effrontery, as we approach the end of the century, to say that voters should be bought and appointed to run a city of such distinction.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that he had a hereditary interest—and so do I. My grandfather was a founder member of the London county council in 1889. I have been looking at what he said at the time, and he said that
the city remains socially and municipally isolated, as if it still hated the enemy without its invisible gates and feared contagion from contact with the world.
Being a scholarly man, my grandfather referred to the legislation. In 1837, the commission set up to look after the administration of the legislation in various towns said that
there was no argument for applying the Act to other towns which did not apply with equal force to London.
London was excluded from the legislation. I can go back 160-odd years to argue that the case for reform has always been there. The House is a motorbike with four-wheel brakes—it deals so slowly with any movement that it detects. That is what I fear about the second Chamber. However, I will not go into that at all.
A Select Committee was set up in 1856 and, in 1867, another Select Committee was set up. In 1884, legislation was proposed to unify the City of London with the rest of London. Surely that is not too speedy for the House, even in its present mood. The Home Secretary, Mr. Harcourt—who used to have a dining room here, but lost out to Churchill—said that he could not give London control of the police because of "Irish outrages". Therefore, it was not possible for the Metropolitan police to be controlled by London. Maybe if it had been, we would not have had the Lawrence inquiry, because there would have been some local accountability.
From the beginning, there has been a tremendous struggle to make the City of London not only democratic, but a part of the greater city from which it draws much of its wealth. The commission of 1837 declared that it was
unable to discover any circumstances justifying the distinction of the City from the rest of the metropolis".
Mr. Asquith—if I may cite some Liberal support in the spirit of consensus politics—said that it was both
constitutional law and common sense that the Corporation of the City holds its property and privileges in trust, not for that square mile".

Mrs. Lait: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a separate police force, called the City of London police, and that the force is responsible to the police authority, known as the court of common council?

Mr. Benn: The problem is that there are two police forces in London. There are the bobbies with the big hats which make them look like Roman centurions, and the Metropolitan police. If the police had been handled as they were in every other city, they would have been accountable to the police authority. The Lawrence case did not arise in the City of London—maybe it would have been different.
In response to a question from the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets on 21 February 1893, the President of the Local Government Board said that the Government intended to appoint a commission
to consider the proper conditions under which the amalgamation of the City and the county of London can be effected, and to make specific and practical proposals for that purpose.

That was 110 years ago—the man who asked the question was my grandfather. Alas, I did not know him—he died before I was born. However, he would turn in his grave if I did not speak on the matter to which he devoted his life.
In 1894, the royal commission presented its report. It said that it had
conceded the whole case for unification, and for the inclusion of the City in the new London. It was proposed that the governing body of London should be elected in the same way as the existing County Council".
However, the Government lost office. A new Government came in, and Lord Salisbury—the Salisburys are always in there when skulduggery is to be done—addressed the Conservatives on 7 November 1894 and delivered a violent attack on the London county council. He described it as
the place where Collectivist and Socialistic experiments are tried … a place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.
That was before the Labour party was formed. I can understand why Lord Cranborne and others are still at it.
You either believe in one man—or one woman—one vote, based on human rights, or you sell it all off, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, with great charm, advised us that the centre of our great city—our capital city—should be subject to commercial purchase. The hon. Member for Tatton—I think that the Tatton doctrine will go down with the Nolan doctrine and others—said that that was unacceptable.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is such a nice man—he is such a good loser. I hope that he prepares himself to show that talent again when the House votes at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), has made it clear that the case for the Bill is a difficult one to make.
It is unfortunate that we are having to have such a Gilbertian debate about the government of such an important place. Whatever our view about the outcome, the City of London is hugely important to Britain. I hope that nobody will confuse the ridiculous set of propositions and counter-arguments that we are having to go through with a view that the City is not important and should not continue to be important, in the interests not just of London, but of Britain.
I should declare my interest, although even that too may have become a bit Gilbertian. As a member of a set of chambers in the Temple, although it is outside the City, I am a City of London elector, because tenants of chambers currently get a City business vote. I said somewhere else the other day that I had an interest because I was a voter, and was then telephoned by one of the elected representatives, who told me that I did not appear on this year's electoral roll. My clerk told me that he had left me off by mistake, so I may not be a voter this year, but I am normally a City of London voter and I have sometimes voted.
I have a second interest to declare. My borough and my constituency—Southwark: south walk; south ward—were nearly part of the City. We also should be a city, but that


is a separate debate. We further have a lot of interest in the City because many of my constituents live in properties owned by the City of London. They are in the unsatisfactory position of being council tenants, but, like private tenants, being unable to choose the people who are their council landlord. They are, however, grateful—perhaps this is the only point that will offend Labour Members—that the City of London runs its housing stock much better than the London borough of Southwark. Many tenants are happy to live in City of London properties rather than Southwark council properties.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I think that I lost my vote when I changed chambers, but I was one of the 15,000 voters in the City of London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Bill goes through, if two or three major companies get together in any ward, they will be able to control the elected person? If that happens on a large enough scale, the City could be sold over the head of the citizens by the common council, without any recourse to justice.

Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is in the right direction. We should be careful, because the Bill has some worrying aspects, while it also does not contain certain other measures that should be enshrined in law rather than in a document that does not have the force of law.
Picking up on a point of order made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), as someone who once took a case to the European Commission of Human Rights and also worked there for a while, I believe that there may well be a case, though not necessarily a winnable one, for claiming that article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention, which says:
The High Contracting Parties"—
of which this country is one—
undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
could be difficult to uphold properly if the free expression of the opinion of the people who live in the place can be overridden by the free expression of the opinion of people who live outside. I am not saying that such a case would definitely win. I have not taken legal advice on that, but it is an arguable point.

Mr. McDonnell: Is the hon. Gentleman offering to undertake that case on a no win, no fee basis? If so, we shall talk about it later.

Mr. Hughes: The current state of my finances might mean that I would have to negotiate a different arrangement, but the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue.
There is no Liberal Democrat whip on the Bill, so I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I am just making a contribution as someone who has followed the issue. My hon. Friends are free to vote or not as they choose.
I should like to put a logical sequence of questions. Should the City of London have its own local government? We have been persuaded, as the Labour party was nationally in recent years, that that is acceptable, reasonable and appropriate.
What sort of local government should the City have? Should it be different from the rest of local government, which has just residents electing the people who administer their affairs? Like the London Labour party, the Liberal Democrats in London have debated the issue and come to conclusions, some of which are central to the debate: the City must have procedures and practices that are transparently democratic and accountable; the electorate and service users must be involved in decision making; and, most importantly, the system should be based on a democratic franchise under which City residents can elect their government, but which recognises that the City is an exceptional case and requires the business community to have some contribution to corporation policy.
Can we have local government for the City that has more than just residents as electors? We believe that the case can be argued. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a linked point on that. There is no logical reason why other places in Britain cannot have business voters if the City of London can. There are good reasons why cities such as Glasgow or Birmingham might want similar business votes. There is no reason—other than the historical reason—why the City has different rights from other places.
However, we believe that City of London residents should have the majority say. They do not at the moment and the Bill is defective in that it will not rectify that. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, as the chairman of the policy and resources committee—the effective leader of the City council—has also told me, that there has been consultation with residents and that they are happy with what is proposed. I am satisfied that that is true. A system that does not give the majority of votes to residents would, however, be more satisfactory if there had been a proper referendum with a clear, independently scrutinised result. The City might think of doing that.
We had a debate on this issue in a Committee of the whole House on the Greater London Authority Bill a couple of weeks ago. I said that the City's proposals to reform itself—like us, the Labour Government said, "City, reform thyself', and the City has come back with some proposals—are pretty timid. I repeat that: they are pretty timid proposals. Although, on balance, the Bill would make the system slightly better than before, there must be much more change for the system to be a democratic form of local government. I hope that those in the City who support that view will be able to persuade those who do not that they need to change quickly in that direction.
Is the City willing to be braver? The jury is out. There is no suggestion of that in the Bill, but there are other encouraging signs. I thank those in the City and outside who are enlightened enough to realise that considerable further reforms are needed.
What is the effect on residents? Are they being disfranchised by the Bill? They are not. Are they being given less power? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster correctly said that they are not. I have learnt something about the City in preparing for this debate. It has a strange anomaly; there are 25 wards in the City, four of which currently have a majority of residential votes. Under the proposed reforms, there will


still be a majority of residential votes in four wards, so the relative balance of power for the residents will remain the same.
There are also plans, although not in the Bill, to increase the residents' power as against that of businesses, even though—this is one of the Gilbertian circles—the number of businesses and business people with votes increases as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Love: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) when he tried to explain this matter, and I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, yet I still have some difficulty. If there is a vast increase in the number of electors, and representation on the common council is not based on a specific number of electors, there will be a considerable increase in the number of representatives of the business interest, which will dilute representation of the interests of those who live in the City. How can that be called protecting their interests?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask questions, because the subject becomes almost fiendishly complicated. I do not want to give a seminar on it, but because it is germane, I will try to answer the question in a few sentences.

Mr. Love: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to write to me.

Mr. Hughes: I would rather talk to the hon. Gentleman than write to him.
There is a proposal that the number of business voters should increase, but not the number of people who will be elected. There is another proposal, which is not in the Bill, to reduce the number of councillors. At present, there are more than 100 councillors and aldermen, and the City is already reducing the number of councillors per ward. There is a debate about how far that should go, but I share what I think is the Government's view—that the objective should be that the City council ends up being about the same size as any other local council, with about 50 or 60 people. Greater influence and power can be achieved by allowing residents to elect more of the representatives even while businesses are given the right to have a say in the electoral system.
The business vote change is, on balance, welcome. At present, only sole traders and partners get votes in the City. That group is diminishing: there used to be about 40,000 electors in this group and now there are about 15,000. Many accountants, for example, who would have been partners in the past, are now in companies. If we are to have a business vote at all, it would be nonsense to keep only the present category of business voter.

Mr. McDonnell: It is critical that we understand the hon. Gentleman's mind. As soon as one takes the first step on that path, one accepts the principle of the business vote. There are no compromises on democracy. Either we have one person, one vote or the system is not democratic. What is his view?

Mr. Hughes: My view is clear: the majority of people elected in the City of London as local government

representatives should be elected by residents, but I am prepared to accept that, because of the authority's particular nature, a minority could come from a business franchise. I do not comment on whether that should be limited to the City or whether, if other places wanted to do it, they should be allowed to.

Mr. McDonnell: That is a startling revelation of Liberal Democrat policy. I fear for the hon. Gentleman's leadership chances as a result. He is willing to countenance in his own borough businesses having control in some areas, or having a direct vote on the delivery of services. That is a startling development.

Mr. Hughes: It is perfectly proper to have a debate on the subject. Personally, I would countenance such a proposal only if the electors, who are the residents, agreed to it by ballot. In my borough, I would countenance some business votes only if the people of Southwark voted for that to be the structure of their council. Ideally, the whole of this debate should have taken place in the context of a debate about local government, so that we could first sort out the rules by which local government is structured before considering specific councils.

Mr. McDonnell: On that logic, if the electorate of the hon. Gentleman's constituency were willing to give a vote to business for his parliamentary election, would he support that? That is the logic of the path down which he is going. We cannot differentiate between elections. Either we have democracy at the local, regional, national and European levels or we do not have it at all. As soon as we trespass on the right of individuals to have a say via the ballot box, we undermine the whole principle and, eventually, the practice.

Mr. Hughes: We in Parliament should decide about elections to Parliament. I have no doubt at all that the House will retain the view that the only people with the right to vote for Members of Parliament are those who vote on the basis of residence. The debate about whether we should allow business a vote in local elections should start in Parliament, and if Parliament here thought that a sensible option, as some countries do, we could allow it to be implemented. I am not arguing that it is my preferred model, but if the residents of the City of London want a majority resident vote with a minority business vote, I am not prepared to say that they should not be allowed to have it.

Mr. McDonnell: If the majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents agreed to businesses being able to vote for or against his being elected to Parliament, would he support that? That is the ultimate logic of what he is saying.
In business districts elsewhere, for example in the United States, the system is based not on a business vote, but on an overarching democracy in the city, allowing businesses, largely in an administrative or advisory role, to have some involvement in their area. The ultimate responsibility lies with the overarching authority; and the new strategic body for London will be such an authority.

Mr. Hughes: There is a difference between deciding how councillors are elected, which could reasonably be left in part to local determination, and deciding how


Members of Parliament are elected. How Members of Parliament are elected is clearly a matter for Parliament to decide, or for the electors of the country as a whole to decide by referendum; those are the only two ways of deciding that matter. However, it is perfectly logical to argue that it is for the people of Southwark or those of Hillingdon to have a say in how their local government representatives are elected.
Let me try to link that to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am not trying to defend the propositions in the Bill. I would not have chosen to start from the Bill; nor do I think that, in logic, it is easy to persuade people to vote for the Bill. However, on the issue of how to arrange business votes, there might be a logical argument in favour of giving certain powers, influence over and contributions to decision making to business, but within a remit that is ultimately controlled only by those who are residential electors. That is a model used in other parts of the world.

Mr. Benn: To put it crudely, in constituencies or boroughs where there is a Conservative majority, the majority of electors would see the case for a business vote to keep that seat or that council Conservative; but in Labour or Liberal areas, there would be no such advantage, so the case would be rejected. The result would be a two-tier system in which Conservative areas backed by business were always Conservative, but other areas were not. The hon. Gentleman's reading of his speech is taking him back to a Liberal position that has not been seen since the Whigs disappeared.

Mr. Hughes: I am not taking the Liberal Democrats back to any such position. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's points, which is why I said that business votes should be contemplated only if they have first been discussed by Parliament in the context of local government; and only if Parliament agrees the framework should they be agreed to, for exactly the reasons the right hon. Gentleman cites. I am not saying that the proposition is one that is, in logic or in democracy, defensible. However, given the starting point of this Bill, the proposition to allow other than single traders or partners to have a vote is better than keeping the current system. That is all that the Bill is about.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The trend of the hon. Gentleman's thinking is extremely worrying, and it is greatly to his advantage that none of his Liberal Democrat colleagues are present to hear him—I hope that they do not read Hansard tomorrow. He suggests that it would be open to a majority of residents in a borough or a constituency to vote to dilute the value of their own democratic vote by ceding part of it to the business community, but what about the minority of residents who might vote against such a proposition? Do the majority have the right to undermine the value of their vote and their democratic rights?

Mr. Hughes: I think that I have dealt with that argument by pointing out that the Bill is here, being debated, because it is Parliament that has to decide such matters; Parliament has to set the framework and decide what is acceptable. Under our constitution, lacking a bill of rights or a written constitution, Members of Parliament are the only people who can ensure that the rights of

minorities are defended. At the end of the day, it is Parliament which must act, and that is why the Bill is here—in spite of its history and its statutes, the City cannot get proposals through unless it puts them through this place. I should add that I have none the less discovered that some measures, such as boundary changes in the City, can be carried out without their having to pass through the normal processes of Parliament, but that is another matter.

Mr. Bradley: To complete the circle: when we started, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) was trying to identify the hon. Gentleman's own position on the concept that he has unveiled to us. If he had the vote in his borough or constituency, would he vote for such a proposition? Would he cast his vote in favour of enfranchising the business community, or against it?

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should confine our arguments to the subject of the Bill and not stray beyond the boundaries of the City of London.

Mr. Hughes: To answer the question put by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), I would support the retention of the status quo, in which only residents should vote. The only argument that I would make in strong support of the Bill is that, given where we start from, it is better that there is a slightly wider electoral base than currently exists. That is the only proposition that can be advanced if the Bill is the only measure put before us and if it represents one inch of movement in the right direction. However, I hope that I have made it clear that, if the City is not bolder than is shown in the Bill, it will be in trouble before long.

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. I have not tried to pin him down before, but I fear that I must do so now. The Bill would clearly extend and confirm the right of the business vote, which goes against every tradition of the hon. Gentleman's party since its foundation in the philosophy of liberalism and individualism. Does he support the Bill?
I believe that the Bill is unamendable and that we may well ask for another Bill, one that can be properly debated and discussed. The element—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making speeches during his interventions. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Hughes: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question and then endeavour not to give way again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly expressed my view during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House of the Greater London Authority Bill. My personal view is that the Bill does not represent sufficiently adequate reform; the City should go away and come back with a different Bill, because the current one does not meet the test of democracy. However, the Bill is here and the question we have to ask is whether or not it is amendable in Committee, if it gets that far. I shall not be a member of the Committee; nor will the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Tatton asked who would get the business vote. It is difficult to defend the proposals in the Bill that would allow votes to be dished out by business with no legal control over that process.
I have made my position clear to the City, which must come up with rules. The guidance is to be improved, but, without the power of statute, any system to control the mechanism ensuring fair voting seems to me to be one that could leave voting in the hands of a very small number of people.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: In a second. As the Bill stands, that small number of people could be made up only of directors, or rich people, or men—all unacceptable propositions that would have to be amended.

Mr. Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the City of London is unique, and that separate franchise arrangements can and should apply? Does he also agree that the City's financial institutions are Britain's only world-class industry cluster? We must think very seriously about any proposals to change that. On balance, although I accept that the Bill, in many respects, is defective, should we not consider giving it a Second Reading and then amending it in Committee, given that we need to modernise arrangements?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has identified the central question. Will the Bill, as drafted, improve people's participation in voting in the City, or will it make it worse? I repeat what I have said already: the Bill is an improvement because it gives the little newsagent and the City firm a chance to have a say, whereas before they had no say. However, I hope that the City comes up with something more because the Bill is still not good enough to pass the democratic test.
The Bill also does not deal with ward boundaries, or with the fact that some wards have fewer than 100 electors, but my final point has to do with the aldermen. No qualification is necessary for that position: if I understand the Bill correctly, a person could live in Cornwall and still become an alderman. However, the Lord Mayor of London can be chosen only from among the company of aldermen. That is entirely indefensible. The City has improved matters a bit recently, by providing that aldermen are elected only for six years, rather than for life. However, I do not think that anyone could defend the proposition that the senior representative of the council—its figurehead—should be selected only from a group of people who have so little in the way of electoral justification. I hope that the City deals with that, too.
It is clear from the debate that, although the Bill's sponsor, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), may win the vote, the argument has not been won. I do not think that it can be easily won. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, if we are reforming the House of Lords, introducing

devolution to other parts of the country and trying to modernise the constitution, the City of London must realise that it cannot go on in this way, and that it cannot expect to persuade the House with a proposition that is so timid and still so far from being democratically acceptable.

Mr. John Cryer: I, too, oppose the Bill. I found the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) absolutely extraordinary. He took his party's views on democratic representation back to the era before that of Earl Grey, who saw the great Reform Bill through Parliament.
I was also amazed by the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). He seemed to want to take us back to an era before the Labour party even existed. When we challenge the principle of one person, one vote, and hand power and votes to people because they have property or a certain amount of wealth, we start to undermine the whole democratic process.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who once aspired to be the Liberal Democrat party's mayoral candidate for London, should take democracy in London so lightly?

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is fortunate that no other Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber because his speech was quite extraordinary.
I may be called a sentimental old fool, but I have always believed in democratic accountability and in one person, one vote.

Mr. Pearson: I do not want to stop the flow of my hon. Friend's Liberal bashing, but he referred to my earlier intervention and I wanted to make it clear that my view is that the City of London is a unique institution for which unique arrangements might apply. I would by no means support any arrangement other than one person, one vote for any other franchise.

Mr. Cryer: I support nothing but one person, one vote anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) seemed to argue that the City is unique in part because of its radical history. It is true that the City once had a radical tinge when the coffee shops were radical centres. It was so, for example, during the campaign to abolish slavery.
However, things have changed a bit since then. Two hundred years ago, the City was not full of toffs in red braces, driving Porches and moving large amounts of money around the globe. The City is no longer a radical centre. Far from it; it is a centre for wealth, privilege and power. I have always seen the City as one of the great bulwarks of the unfair capitalist society, to coin a phrase that is none too fashionable these days. The City has stood in the way of every reforming Labour Government, and even in the way of a few reforming Liberal Governments.
Despite what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, changing the franchise to reduce, as the Bill would, the residents' share from 25 to 10 per cent. would be an attack on democracy. I do not think the present system worth defending; we should get rid of the corporation completely. However, to reduce the residents' franchise would be to extend the power of wealth, privilege and business in the City.
A minimum rateable value of £10,000 would entitle companies to one voter, and they could have another one for every additional f10,000. That is indefensible under any circumstances. Those who would nominate the voter would not have to be resident in Britain. They could be resident anywhere. It could be that a business man in the City who was resident in Peru could nominate a voter who was resident in Sri Lanka.
My main objection is not residency, however. The real objection is that political power will be distributed according to wealth. That takes us back to before the great Reform Act of 1832. Earl Grey—hardly a radical figure, ready to man the barricades on behalf of working people—managed to get that Act through because the system was so patently unfair. I have looked over some figures from before 1832 to judge how much power individuals wielded. The Society of the Friends of the People estimated in the 1800s that 154 individuals sent 307 Members of Parliament to Westminster. That might go down well on the Tory Benches; it would certainly give them an edge at the next election.
A Tory Member of Parliament, Croker, estimated in the late 1820s that 276 Members of Parliament—which was about half the House of Commons in those days—were returned by individual patrons. We are reverting to that sort of system, whereby a handful of individuals could potentially control thousands of votes on the City corporation.
I am concerned about the cosy relationship between the Tory party and the City—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mentioned that earlier in a point of order. I wonder how many Tory Members who will vote for the Bill tonight have close connections with certain City companies. The Tory party has always had a cosy relationship with the City and its institutions: banks, corporations, and so on. That relationship became much closer in the 1980s when the then Conservative Government passed legislation that gave great breaks to those corporations—the big bang, for instance—and allowed even greater profits to be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must discuss the Bill before us, not events in the City. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) should keep his remarks within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply drawing attention to certain connections that I hope will be apparent tonight. I hope that Tory Members who speak in the debate will be honest about their interests in the City.
Several defences of the Bill have been offered, but none of them holds water. The documentation that I have received from the Corporation of London does not attempt to defend the Bill. It simply says that the present system is pretty awful so we must move to a different system that is not quite as bad. I believe that the proposal this evening is even worse.
Surprisingly, the Association of London Government thinks that the Bill is worthy of support. That came as an enormous shock. The association wrote to me—I suppose it wrote to quite a few hon. Members—and said, in defence of the Bill, that the Corporation of London has
contributed financial and administrative support to many London-wide initiatives, including the London Study, the Agenda 21 process and the London Drugs Policy Forum.
We could mount a similar defence of hereditary peers by saying that a few of them are quite nice old boys who donate a lot of money to homes for retired donkeys and other causes.

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as I think it is important to clarify this point. I am happy to suspend the sitting so that we may ask the Chair of the Association of London Government, Lord Harris. The correspondence from the ALG on this issue makes no reference to any leaders or boroughs meetings that have endorsed the policy. Does my hon. Friend know whether the boroughs have met to discuss the matter? When the ALG discussed business districts, the London boroughs of Westminster, Wandsworth and every other Conservative authority threw out the idea. They prevented the Association of London Government from promoting business districts in the London Local Authorities Bill. I wonder about the authority of the letter from the ALG.

Mr. Cryer: That is an interesting intervention. I was not aware that there had been no meeting to discuss the Bill.
It has been argued in defence of the Bill that there is some sort of link between the prosperity and wealth of the City and the corporation and that, if we do not keep the corporation sweet, we might lose some of that money. I have always believed that we should intervene in the City and redistribute its wealth to the people who naturally support the Labour party. Leaving that issue aside, there is no substantive link between the corporation and the success of the City. There is no link between the corporation's happiness or the way in which the franchise works and the kind of wealth that is produced by the City. More importantly—this is a crucial point for many of my constituents—there is no link with jobs in the City. I do not believe that there will be a huge capital flight from the City because we have insisted on a bit of democracy for a change.
I assume that this three-hour debate is in Government time. I am amazed that they found time for a debate on this Bill, which is an affront to democracy, when we have not had time to debate other Bills that many of us have been keen to get involved with. I believe that the City of London corporation should be abolished, which was Labour party policy for many years; its wealth should be put at the disposal of the wider Greater London population. Tower Hamlets and Islington are very poor boroughs which sit on the border of an immensely rich corporation with wealth approaching £1.5 billion, if memory serves. That money should be put at the disposal of the poorer people in London in those boroughs. It does not look like that will happen now, but I would like it to.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the City's enormous wealth, which is not related to its


system of local governance. That wealth could do much good in the adjoining borough of Hackney, which is my borough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could keep within the limits of the City of London. Hon. Members go wide of the Bill if they talk about other boroughs and their poverty.

Mr. Cryer: I will bear that in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction a question. Labour's document, "New Leadership for London", concerns the creation of a Greater London authority. Among other things, it said that the Government's objective is
restoring democratic city-wide Government to London".
How does that sit with the creation of the authority envisaged by the Bill, which will vest more political power in the hands of the wealthy and those who own property and land in the City of London?
We should remember, particularly as Labour Members, that, except in the City, the business vote was effectively abolished in the 1940s by the Clement Attlee Government. If Attlee came back today, he would be amazed that we were debating this Bill and even considering putting it through Parliament. My hon. Friends should bear that in mind.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the chance to make a brief intervention in this fascinating debate to make the point—

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: When I have made some progress-like finishing my first sentence. The Opposition support the measure and wish it a fair wind because we acknowledge the role of the City of London in our economy and in our country generally. We support the corporation in its intention to extend the franchise in its governance.
I should declare an interest. I have worked in the City since 1976 as a solicitor involved in maritime and commercial matters. I am a member of the Baltic Exchange. I have seen at first hand how crucial the City is to the economic success of our country and seen something of its history and traditions. It is the world's leading international financial centre. I am not one of those affected by the legislation. I do not have a vote under the existing system and would not have one if the Bill became law.

Mr. McDonnell: What did the hon. Gentleman find fascinating about the debate? Was it the Liberal Democrat commitment to the business vote? Was it the fundamental analysis of how anti-democratic this institution is, or were there other elements that fascinated him? What I find fascinating is that he has registered an interest in the matter yet has the effrontery to speak in the debate. How dare hon. Members speak in the Chamber when they have an interest in defending an interest. I find that obscene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman raised the question of Members'

interests. It is for the hon. Gentleman speaking to declare an interest. That has been done, and there is therefore no reason why the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) cannot take part in this debate. It is within the rules of the House.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is within the rules of the House, but in local government, a declaration of interest usually means—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member accepts that such conduct is within the rules of the House. I am here to look after those rules.

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) may have noticed that I declared an interest. If he is suggesting otherwise, perhaps he would like to repeat that outside the House. I understand that he has some experience of the civil courts.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was very explicit in saying that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) had declared an interest. I did not accept that he should continue to speak. I accept the rules of the House, and ask him to withdraw his comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was in order. It is up to him whether he wants to withdraw any comment. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Waterson: If I can, I shall make my speech, which was intended to be short.
How depressing it has been to listen to some Labour Members. Obviously, they were not around when their right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently lectured the Labour party on the importance of wealth creation rather than wealth redistribution. Were those bold words merely skin deep to some Labour Members?
We have certainly had a stroll down memory lane. We have heard the authentic voice of old Labour: a deep-seated hostility to enterprise, business and, above all, the City. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) unwittingly revealed the prejudice that lies beneath all this when he said that some Conservative constituencies want a business vote in order to remain under Conservative control, whereas, of course, a Labour constituency would never want such a vote. Leaving aside the fantasy behind that suggestion, it indicates the notion among old Labour that it would never want to be associated with business and the City.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No, I will not give way.
The honourable exception in the debate has been the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who has some knowledge and experience of these matters, and spoke up for the success of the City of London in our economy.
We heard a little from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) about the history of the matter, going back to the charter of Edward III in 1341. We also rightly heard about the massive contribution that the City makes to this country's economic well-being. In 1997, there were net overseas earnings of £25 billion. In addition, the City contributes £12 billion surplus to the country's balance of invisible trade.

Mr. Love: Hopefully, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman back into the debate. I think that everyone in the Chamber would accept the capacity of the City to generate wealth. Indeed, as a Labour Member, I am acutely aware of my constituents' interests in their connections with, and as employees in, the City. The issue before us is the commitment to reform and democratise City institutions. The basis of our debate is whether the Bill satisfies that requirement.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating common ground between us on the success and importance of the City. I promise him that I am coming to the points that he has raised.
The City of London corporation has undertaken widespread consultation on its proposals through City Review and in other ways. It has published a rather excellent leaflet, "Improving the City's Franchise", which makes several telling points in the context of the Bill. It talks of the need for the corporation to be
constantly … attuned to the needs of the business City",
and the fact that
businesses pay considerable sums towards the cost of local government.
The corporation states:
We believe that a corporate voting system is a natural development of the existing system".
There is also discussion of the nature of a commuter vote. One reason why the City is totally different from anywhere else and cannot be regarded as a local authority in the traditional sense is that while it may have about 5,000 adult residents, some 250,000 people go there every day to earn their living. How are they to be given any say in the running of their place of work?
I do not remember which hon. Member intervened on the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) to ask whether any other city in the world has such a system, but interestingly, the leaflet describes similar systems in Melbourne and Sydney, and there are examples in other parts of Australia and New Zealand.
A recent MORI poll in the City showed that 83 per cent. of City businesses are strongly in favour of extending the vote to businesses and corporate bodies, and a further 9 per cent. are in favour.
As I have said, the City is successful partly because it is special and different.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I want to find out how close the hon. Gentleman's views are to the Liberal Democrat proposition. He said that there is a massive influx of commuters into the City of London, which heavily outweighs the residential population of 5,000, and therefore it is not unreasonable that commuters should be considered in the corporation's affairs. Would he extend

that proposition to the many other cities and boroughs, such as Westminster, the population of which is swelled by commuter traffic every day? Does he agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? That proposition would undermine the democratic principle not only in the unique setting of the City of London, but in every employment-generating borough in the country.

Mr. Waterson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that on this issue, as on every other, any similarity between my views and those of the Liberal Democrats is entirely coincidental.

Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Waterson: No, I shall not.

Mr. Bradley: Will he answer my question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Waterson: The special nature and distinctive quality of the City was recognised by Lord Callaghan as long ago as 1969, when the non-residential vote was abolished. The then Labour Government recognised that the City required a business vote because it is primarily a place for doing business. A figure almost as Olympian as Lord Callaghan, the Minister for London and Construction, who will respond to the debate, referred in December 1997 to
the Lord Mayor continuing to act as a marvellous ambassador internationally for the City and, indeed, for London's financial sector.
He made further flattering remarks about the role of the City of London.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) referred with horror to the Association of London Government's support for the measure. We have all received the same letter from the association, in which it says:
The Association recognises the unique nature of the Corporation of London and agrees that special electoral arrangements need to apply to the governance of the 'square mile'.
We agree with that. The provision sensibly extends the franchise in the City of London and it has our support.

Mr. Bill Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak when I had to miss such a large part of the debate because I had other business with a Minister.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I am far from pleased that it is necessary. I start from the premise that as a democratically elected MP, it is my responsibility to try to ensure that the best democratic standards are upheld at all times. The Bill not only negates that principle, but would perniciously amend existing legislation.
Since the great Reform Act of 1832, there has been constant progress through universal suffrage and general improvements in voting procedures which has led to our position today. We can all be proud of that, except for the situation in one small part of Britain.
I apologise to the many London Members present who may not be called to speak because I have had my few minutes. I apologise because I realise that they must feel as angry as I do about the fact that the Bill is before the House. What is worse, I am almost 300 miles away from the City. We are not speaking of the democratic deficit; we are speaking about a system that is fundamentally undemocratic and anti-democratic, and the Bill will make matters worse.
I have heard many good things said tonight. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) struck a chord with me when he spoke about democracy. I am speaking about democracy and nothing else. I have no interest in speaking for or against the corporation or the City of London. They exist, they do a job, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other. However, I feel that they should have no part in the democratic process in the place in which they are situated.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction on the Front Bench. I should like my Government to introduce a Bill to bring the corporation and City of London into the same democratic procedures as we have everywhere else in this land. I invite my hon. Friend to do so.
It is not unusual for me to be mildly critical of my Government when I speak in the House. That is part of the democratic process. I would much rather the time of the House tonight had been spent dealing with a Bill such as the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, or some other matter of real importance to the people of Britain.
I feel both angry and sad—sad that we have to debate the issue, and angry because of what it stands for. I do not imagine that many of my constituents are aware of the circumstances of the corporation and City of London and the totally undemocratic process by which they are governed. I shall try to make sure that they get to know a little more, as it is as important to them and to people in every other constituency as it is to the people of London, although I accept that it is more annoying to London Members. From what I have heard tonight, it is clear that they are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, but their feelings about democracy are no stronger.
Several hon. Members have said that there is nothing comparable in other democratic countries. I believe that that is correct. I have heard a special case being pleaded, and I am always wary when I hear about a special case, because it is usually a matter of vested interests and attempts to take people's minds off the main issue. The main issue in this case has nothing to do with the wealth-creating abilities or otherwise of the corporation or the City of London, and everything to do with democracy and what people in this country expect.
From what I have heard said by Opposition Members, it seems that if people work somewhere, they should be entitled to a vote there, because they should have a say in the place where they work. When I worked at the colliery, I did not expect to have a vote where the colliery was. I had one where I resided. That should be the cornerstone of all democracy. A vote should be based on where one resides. Are we saying that people who have a caravan should have a vote in the place where their caravan is sited? That is the analogy with the City of London.
I hope that every Labour Member will vote against the Bill, because the democratic situation will be worsened if the Bill goes through. Others will use it as an example. People will say, "Why can we in the north-east not have two votes? Can I not have a vote where I have my little corner shop? Can I not have a vote where I work?" The cornerstone of democracy is one person, one vote, in one place. That is paramount.
I am employed in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who introduced the Bill. I would not expect to have a vote in his constituency. I do not expect to have a vote in Sunderland, where I also have an office. I expect one vote, and one vote only. If I were offered more, I would turn down the offer, because that would be fundamentally wrong. That is what the Bill is about—giving a certain number of people extra voting power. Once we go down the line of giving one person one vote and others more than one vote, we shall start seriously to undermine this country's democratic processes.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster must be proud that he has this palace within his constituency. However, it is ironic that the mother of Parliaments—we should all be proud of the fact that this place stands for everything that is best as far as democracy is concerned—is within shouting distance of a place where attempts are being made by Opposition Members to negate the democratic process. That is the issue at stake.
I warn all hon. Members that if the Bill is passed, it will be the start of a slippery slope, because it will be noticed and others will want the same rights. It is not anti-business to say that it is wrong for business people to have more than one vote. I remember the problems caused in Northern Ireland by the property vote. Some hon. Members know more about that than I because they were here when it existed. I have talked to people who believe in property votes; they want an advantage.
There is no reason to apologise for saying that it is totally wrong for people to expect to have a voting influence because of where they work. There may be exceptions, for example someone who owns a public house and also lives in it, so it is their business and home. Voting rights should be based on residence and nothing else—one person, one vote, where the person resides. Those who seek to move away from that do everyone a great disservice.
I am surprised at the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He is almost a doyen to me in terms of democracy and courtesy. I cannot understand why such a thoroughly decent person would put his name to such a pernicious, insidious and invidious Bill. I say once again to my hon. Friend the Minister, let us see a little bit of democracy and some modernisation. Let us have the democratic powers of the corporation of London taken away from it, so that it gets on with what it does best—the business of creating and distributing money. It is not always distributed how I would like, but I recognise that that is what it does, and that is all it should do. Businesses have plenty of influence within local authorities and this House. That should not be added to by allowing them to have additional votes.
I have brought with me just three pieces of correspondence. The first is from the parliamentary agents of the Bill, a good organisation that I had a lot to do with on the Channel Tunnel Bill. It does that organisation no good


to be introducing this Bill. The second correspondence is from the London Labour party, which all my hon. Friends should support. It deals with this problem day in, day out—it must be terrible to have to live with it.
The third piece of correspondence is from Malcolm J. Maxton, of London EC2Y, whom I thank for drawing this matter to my attention. Although I remember reading about it years ago, so I was vaguely aware of it, I must admit ignorance. I did not know how dreadful the democratic position was in that part of London and I am pleased that I have learnt about it. I hope that the Bill will be defeated tonight.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for being a little late for the start of this debate. No discourtesy was intended. I shall speak very briefly because other hon. Members want an opportunity to speak.
I support the Bill because it will give the business community in the City a voice in its local government and enable voters to represent more accurately the various interests in the City. May I make a couple of narrow points? First, I believe that the present distribution of the electorate around the wards in the City is grossly unsatisfactory.
Perhaps I should declare an interest: my brother, Julian Malins, who is a barrister and Queen's Counsel, is the senior counsellor for the Temple and Fleet street, and for the whole of the Smithfield market area. His electorate numbers more than 8,000 and there is a contested election almost every year. Another ward has about 2,000 electors, but the remaining 23 wards have extremely small electorates, some of which are too embarrassing to mention because the number is so low. Three wards have fewer than 100 electors. Although each ward will have larger numbers after the proposed reforms, the smaller wards will still be far too small and there will still be one ward that is hugely bigger than all the rest.
Although the City of London corporation has the power to alter the ward boundaries, that power cannot deal with the gross imbalance in the numbers. Whatever way the boundaries are altered, there is no way that 6,000 voters in the Temple and Fleet street can be spread around the other wards. The court of common council recognised that. It debated the Bill in autumn 1997 and—on an amendment tabled by my brother—voted to seek from the House the power for the council to reduce the number of wards from 25, which was too many, to a more sensible number—perhaps 12.
Such a motion was passed by the elected councillors, by 44 votes to 34, but voted down by the aldermen, by 18 votes to two. The aldermen do not want the council to have exclusive power to amalgamate wards—although only the court of common council should have such a power and the aldermen should be excluded from it—because, then, the number of aldermen might, and probably would, be reduced. Although I support the Bill, I hope that the House will look carefully at the distribution of the electorate in the City and provide a power to ameliorate that by the amalgamation of wards.
If necessary—although I trust that it will not come to this—the council's power could include the power to have two aldermen, or more, for the amalgamated wards. I hope

that such a compromise will not be needed, because, as a further beneficial result of simple ward amalgamations, the present balance in numbers between the aldermen and the councillors, which would move adversely to the councillors if the Bill were passed unchanged, will remain. I will support the Bill's Second Reading.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): It may be helpful at this point to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. As hon. Members have already pointed out, the City corporation is a unique institution for a unique place—the premier financial centre of Europe. The City is almost entirely a business district, with a resident population of barely 5,000—about a thirtieth of the population of the smallest London borough—and, because of that, the City corporation has a different role from that of other local authorities.
The City corporation has also shown, particularly in recent years, that it has a valuable contribution to make to the success of London as a world-class city. For example, it promotes inward investment, helps to finance schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole and manages open spaces such as Epping forest and Hampstead heath.
The Lord Mayor, Lord Levene, who has had a distinguished career in business and public service, has made clear his and the City corporation's commitment to build on that positive contribution, particularly in the context of the new structure of London governance being put into place by the Greater London Authority Bill. His commitment has been matched by that of Judith Mayhew, the chair of the City's policy and resources committee, who is listening to the debate. She has been a powerful advocate for modernisation of the City corporation's structure and role.

Mr. McDonnell: I echo what my hon. Friend has said about the work that Michael Cassidy and Judith Mayhew have done over the years to encourage the backwoodsmen on the common council to accept some reform, and I look forward to welcoming them in the Labour party. However, can he say, in all honesty and without shame, that the Bill, not other proposals that may be made subsequently, is a step forward for democracy—the democracy to which our party has committed itself since its foundation? Can he, hand on heart, say that the Bill is a step forward, when it increases the business vote and reduces the percentage of the residents' vote?

Mr. Raynsford: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the current chair and her predecessor on the City's policy and resources committee. If he will bear with me, I shall make clear the Government's view of the context of the Bill, and the way in which it can, we think, make a useful contribution to a programme of reform in the City—a programme introduced in response to a challenge issued by the Government before our election in 1997. I shall elaborate on that shortly.
The Government welcome the commitment to reform in the City. Although the current structures and electoral arrangements for the City corporation are in many respects wholly anachronistic, we have made clear our view that we do not think it right to abolish the


corporation. We reached that view in the full knowledge of the corporation's assurance that it would continue its work promoting inward investment and the interests of London as a whole. Our decision was also made on the basis of the corporation's assurance that it had accepted the requirement for it to respond to the need for it to reform its electoral arrangements. The Bill is one part—only one part—of the response that the corporation promised. It is part of the corporation's agenda, designed to modernise its structure and electoral arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) asked how the Government's commitment to the establishment of citywide democratic government in London married with the Bill. I have partly answered my hon. Friend's question already, but I owe it to him to clarify what I said earlier. Before the last general election, the Government, then in opposition, made clear their commitment to restore democratic citywide government to London, thus putting right a serious wrong that was done 13 years ago when a Conservative Government abolished the Greater London council. At the same time, we made it clear that we did not intend to abolish the City corporation, but expected it to produce proposals for reform.

Mr. Benn: Just before the election, the Labour party was asked to adopt a new constitution stating that it committed itself to the many, not the few. The Bill allows the few to buy more votes from the many, and I cannot believe that the Government could ask the House to accept it in any circumstances.

Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend argued earlier that the problem was that the Bill increased the number of people with the business vote, which seems to me to represent the many rather than, as it were, the less many; but I shall pass over that. The key issue is whether the corporation should, because it has a special and unique role, have a constitutional arrangement for the election of members of the common council that is different from the arrangement applying to every other part of the United Kingdom. Had we intended to abolish the corporation, it would unquestionably have come to an end; but, before the general election, we made clear our commitment not to abolish the corporation, but to seek reform of it.

Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I have given way already, and I want to make more progress.

Mr. McDonnell: rose

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has intervened many times throughout the debate, and I want to make a little more progress.
The City presented its proposals for reform following extensive consultation and debate between September 1997 and February last year. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—who spoke with characteristic wit and erudition, and who has taken a close interest in the process—referred to that consultation, which covered key City interests, businesses, residents and various bodies, and involved the three main national political parties.
The resulting package of reforms was agreed by the City last September. It included not only the extension of the franchise in the Bill, but a number of other reforms to the City's procedures and decision-making structures.
The City have introduced a period of office for aldermen, so that they will no longer hold their positions for life and will have to seek re-election at least once every six years. The infamous aldermanic veto whereby the Court of Aldermen could prevent a properly elected alderman from taking office has been abolished and replaced by a more open vetting procedure based solely on qualification for the magistracy.
The City has also set in train some important structural changes, including reducing the size of the court of common council. Until recently, that comprised 155 members–130 common council men and 25 aldermen. It does seem curious that one of the smallest local authorities in the country in terms of area and population should have the largest number of members of any local authority—larger even than the largest local authority in Britain, Birmingham, which manages with 117 councillors.
Even more stark is the contrast with the composition of the new Greater London authority, which, for a population of upwards of 7 million, will have to make do with a single mayor and just 25 assembly members. Therefore, I am pleased that the City corporation has recognised the need to reduce the size of the common council. It is already cutting it to 125 members and aldermen and has agreed to reduce the number further—to 100—following the passage of the Bill.
The Bill, along with the other reforms to which I have alluded, are a step in the right direction. Further improvements will also be possible. Those could include the review of the ancient ward boundaries and the allocation of members between the wards to overcome a number of anomalies, as identified by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).

Mr. Etherington: I have a predicament, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. May I go back and tell my constituents that it is now Labour party policy to allow employers and property owners to appoint electors for local elections in areas where they do not reside?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend made a passionate speech in defence of democracy. I would not disagree with much of what he said. If asked by electors and residents in his area, I would urge him to say openly that what we have been discussing has been a reform of an ancient institution that, for hundreds of years, has enabled people to vote on the basis of a business franchise. In place of procedures that are riddled with anomalies—whereby several people can vote on several occasions, pluralism is rampant, and where the distinctions under which people are entitled to a business vote bear no relationship to the current pattern of business in that community—we want a Bill that proposes a reform of that business franchise.
I accept that many of my hon. Friends have strong reservations about the concept of any business vote at all. I fully understand that, but I put it to hon. Friends,


who have spoken passionately, that we are dealing with the reform of an existing institution that has a history of several hundred years.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Raynsford: Had we intended to abolish the institution altogether, it would have been appropriate for us to say so before the general election. We did not do that. We gave an undertaking before the general election—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister gave an undertaking before the general election that Labour, if elected, would work with the City corporation to reform its institutions. That is exactly what the Government are doing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Raynsford: We gave undertakings to the electorate.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not going to give way.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We gave undertakings before the general election. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that it is right for a Government to honour their undertakings and to act in accordance with the undertakings that they gave before they were elected.

Mr. Love: I accept my hon. Friend's statement on our commitment before the general election. Today, therefore, we have to decide whether the Bill matches that commitment on reform and democratisation. Is the Minister saying that it does?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If he will bear with me, I shall deal in a moment with precisely that point.
I was describing what had been achieved, and saying that, in the Government's view, further reform would be beneficial in achieving a more equitable distribution of voters and elected representatives.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No; I have already given way, and should make a little more progress.
I hope that the City corporation will take full advantage of the opportunity to improve further its democratic credentials by pursuing those and other reforms.
The corporation's proposal to extend the franchise is certainly novel. It seeks to recognise the special circumstances and unique demographic structure in the City, and it seeks to recognise the benefits that can be realised by including a much wider range of interests in the local decision-making structure. It includes also significant reform of current arrangements under which certain businesses and professional interests are included within the franchise on a basis that reflects past rather than current patterns of commercial activity and property

ownership in the City. Those who have criticised the proposed reform must recognise that the status quo is simply not defensible. If the Bill does not progress further today, the status quo will prevail.
The Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put governance of the City on a more modern footing, so that it represents more accurately the various interests in the square mile. The Committee will be by far the best place to consider the Bill fully—to consider the substance, to examine the detail and to hear expert evidence. I have no doubt that, if many of the views—which are strongly held ones and have been passionately expressed in this debate—on the respective merits of different forms of electoral arrangements are properly debated and considered in Committee, the Bill can be both changed and improved.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Surely the Bill should not proceed to Committee, as it is wrong not only in practice but in principle. If the Government were applying the same principle to reform of the House of Lords—which we are not—surely we would be arguing that we should leave hereditary peers in the other place, and somehow reduce their proportionate power by selling places in the other place to business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we cannot go beyond the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in drawing one parallel in responding to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). The Government pledged in our manifesto that we would reform the other place, and we are doing that. We pledged also that we would seek reform in the City rather than abolition of the City. If the Bill receives a Second Reading today, reform will be possible. If it does not receive a Second Reading today, the current arrangement—which is fundamentally unsatisfactory—will remain in place. I do not think that anyone who believes that we should be seeking reform and modernisation could justify that.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No; I am finishing.
I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and will be allowed to proceed in the conventional way to Committee for the detailed consideration that I believe it needs and deserves.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), for my late arrival. May I welcome to the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and say that we look forward to many equally impressive occasions with my hon. Friend?
I am possibly unique in the Chamber. Not only do I share with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) the pleasure of having West Wickham common in my constituency, but, for 17 years, I have lived in the City. I am one of those potentially rare people—a


resident of the City of London. I have lived in two wards—Cripplegate and Aldersgate. I can recommend highly living in the Barbican—the City is a pleasant place to be. My husband worked in the City, but is now retired—I am pleased to say, due to his success in business.
When I was the chairman of the Conservatives in the City of London—on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—we fought European parliamentary and general elections. However, we never fought elections for common council, because those elections—and there always was a contest—were for independent representatives. All residents knew that there was a distinct imbalance between the vast number who were able to vote in wards with residents and the appallingly few voters in most of the other wards. Therefore, I welcome the proposal to increase the number of voters in the other wards.
It is very important that a degree of democracy is brought to what is a unique institution. I agree with the Minister that we must ensure that there is a much better balance between the views of the residents and the views of business. At present, the views of business come from a narrow constituency, and the increase proposed by the corporation will modernise the voting role in the City.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Lait: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I know that others wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that we are not depriving the residents of a vote. In fact, in percentage terms—and with the City's other proposals—we will ensure that there is an increase in their representation.

Mr. McDonnell: Not in this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has made quite a contribution through interventions. He cannot speak from a sedentary position—it is unfair.

Mrs. Lait: It was obvious to residents of the City that we needed to widen the franchise, and to ensure that there was a much more representative basis for the common councillors. The corporation was very responsive on the matters affecting the residents, such as planning, traffic and environmental matters, and I cannot speak too highly of it.
I should like to reiterate to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead that, although this matter is not in the Bill, it is governed by the Representation of the People Acts, as amended by the Maastricht treaty, so that the only people who can be chosen by businesses either to go on the electoral register or to stand for election are those who have been able to vote in local government elections in the UK. Foreign people with no interest in the City will not be able to stand.
We have seen enormous confusion tonight among those who are opposed to the Bill: those who wish to go back to a residents-only basis—in which case, there would be an even smaller voting population than at present in terms

of businesses—those who favour the status quo and those who want to abolish the system altogether. On behalf of the City corporation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. An hon. Member is addressing the House and there are too many private conversations going on. There are even private conversations going on at the moment below the Gangway. That is wrong and unfair.

Mrs. Lait: There is enormous confusion in the aims and objectives of those who oppose the Bill, but those of us who support it are unanimous that the corporation needs to be reformed in the way proposed.

Ms Karen Buck: I shall be very brief, because I know that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) wants to reply to the debate. I am also conscious of the fact that most of my arguments have been made eloquently and powerfully by others.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the City was given a clear message about the need for reform. It has responded with one or two concessions outwith the Bill on the election of aldermen and the end of the veto. However, the Bill merely modernises the business vote qualification. That is a tragic missed opportunity. Those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have missed the point. The issue is the distribution of the franchise and the representation that each vote buys.
In his very eloquent introduction, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster admitted that the share of the franchise held by residents would fall from 25 to 10 per cent. He advised us that they would maintain their representation because of the ward system. That is not good enough, although I accept that the argument is technically correct. We had some discussion about that earlier.
The argument is not good enough, partly because it is not enshrined in the Bill, so we have no guarantee. The Bill also does nothing to ensure progress towards greater democracy for residents. Progress could have been demonstrated by a significant shift towards improving the residential franchise, but that has not happened. Worse still, the business-nominated voters need have no connection with the City through either residence or work place. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said confidently that common sense would dictate that there would be such a connection, but it is no disrespect to common councillors to say that democracy should not rest on such vagueness.
The City corporation is a local authority with responsibility for schools, personal social services, police and traffic control for a residential population as well as the vastly inflated daytime population—a characteristic that the City of London shares with Westminster and with Kensington and Chelsea.
That the City is an unusual local authority by virtue of its scale is not in dispute. That it should have the right to a unique system of government is entirely disputable.

Mr. Brooke: This has been a remarkable debate, although I shall not say that it has been wholly enjoyable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the Minister for putting the positions of the Opposition and the Government.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) was concerned about Epping forest and the open spaces. It is only 10 years since the City of London took on further responsibility for Hampstead heath. It has won golden opinions for the manner in which it has carried out that responsibility.
I should like to link the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) with that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). The hon. Member for Tatton was expressing the spirit of J. S. Mill in his remarks about universal suffrage. J. S. Mill was the Member of Parliament for my constituency in the days when my ancestors were Liberal Members of Parliament.
I should point out to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the irony that the City police force is governed by a local police authority, but the police force in the greater city of London is not.
The rules of common council would prevent the issue that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised with me in an intervention.
I have great good will towards the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), so there is no edge to my remarks to him. An encapsulation of his speech would have been the moment when Blucher was taken up on to the dome of St. Paul's and, looking down on the City of London, said, "Vot a splendid city to sack!"
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), formerly one of my constituents, and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), my parliamentary neighbour, came in on an essentially local basis at the end of the debate, and I am grateful to both.
The heart of the issue lies with the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, echoing the earlier speech by the hon. Member for Tatton. He paid me a compliment, and I pay him one in return. It was a remarkable and eloquent statement on the principle of universal suffrage—I see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield nodding—and I could not dissent from the philosophy expressed, but, as the Minister said, we are dealing with a unique institution.
The City of London is a curious animal. In about 1800, there were 200,000 people living in the City; there were still 60,000 or 70,000 in 1870; and still 14,000 at the end of the war; but it has shrunk. It consists of some pockets of flats, and there are publicans, caretakers and people in nurses' homes, as well as those in the Temple, but it is essentially a deserted area at night. Between 250,000 and 300,000 people come to work there in the day. It is a part of our nation which has essentially—by history, as it has been occupied for commercial purposes for 2,000 years—become a business district, just as the citizens of Melbourne have made the heart of Melbourne a business district, with a similar franchise.
The City is different, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North need not worry that we are on a slippery slope and every body in the country will follow. Other bodies have not followed since Lord Herbert made the remark that the City was a unique body in the royal

commission of 1957–60. Nobody has suggested that the business vote should be brought back since it was abolished in 1969 in any other local authority because it has continued in the City of London.
The Liberals under Gladstone proposed that there should be home rule for Ireland and the great Dicey argued that it was appropriate to have different methods of government in different parts of the country. The present Government have followed that thesis in their various devolution arrangements.
On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Home Secretary said:
electoral systems should be appropriate to the nature and functions of the body that is being elected."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 546.]
The proposals in the Bill are there because it is felt to be desirable that a business district with a remarkable past should have a remarkable future. I hope that the House will respond to the views of the three main parties expressed tonight in favour of the Bill.

Mrs. Lait: rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 91.

Division No. 75]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Allen, Graham
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Beard, Nigel
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dowd, Jim


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan Smith, Iain


Betts, Clive



Boswell, Tim
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Edwards, Huw


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fabricant, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Browning, Mrs Angela
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Burnett, John
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Butterfill, John
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Casale, Roger
Fox, Dr Liam


Chidgey, David
Gale, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gorrie, Donald


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Graham, Thomas



Green, Damian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Greenway, John


Clelland, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cranston, Ross
Hammond, Philip


Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)
Hanson, David






Hawkins, Nick
Öpik, Lembit


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Paice, James


Hill, Keith
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pope, Greg


Hoey, Kate
Powell, Sir Raymond


Horam, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prior, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Quinn, Lawrie


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Jenkins, Brian
Rogers, Allan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rooker, Jeff



St Aubyn, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Sanders, Adrian


Keetch, Paul
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Key, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Kirkwood, Archy



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lansley, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spellar, John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spring, Richard


Lock, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stoate, Dr Howard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Syms, Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McCabe, Steve
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCafferty, Ms Chris



McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Temple-Morris, Peter


McIsaac, Shona
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McNulty, Tony
Thompson, William


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


Madel, Sir David
Touhig, Don


Major, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trickett, Jon


Maples, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Tyler, Paul


Mates, Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Viggers, Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Wallace, James


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Meale, Alan
Waterson, Nigel


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Wilkinson, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Moore, Michael



Moran, Ms Margaret
Wilshire, David


Moriey, Elliot
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Moss, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Norman, Archie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Olner, Bill
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. David Amess.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Illsley, Eric


Allan, Richard
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ashton, Joe
Kemp, Fraser


Atkins, Charlotte
Kidney, David


Barnes, Harry
Laxton, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Lepper, David


Beggs, Roy
Levitt, Tom


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Linton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Love, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
McAllion, John


Bermingham, Gerald
McDonnell, John


Berry, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Best, Harold
McWilliam, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Maxton, John


Cann, Jamie
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Clapham, Michael
Mullin, Chris


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Pickthall, Colin


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter L


Coleman, Iain
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Connarty, Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salter, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Savidge, Malcolm


Crausby, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Sheerman, Barry


Cummings, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Dalyell, Tam
Singh, Marsha


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis



Steinberg, Gerry


Dawson, Hilton
Stevenson, George


Dean, Mrs Janet
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Etherington, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Galloway, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Gerrard, Neil
Wareing, Robert N


Gibson, Dr Ian
Watts, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Winnick, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wood, Mike


Heppell, John
Wray, James


Hinchliffe, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Hood, Jimmy



Hopkins, Kelvin
Tellers for the Noes:


Hurst, Alan
Mr. Stephen Pound and


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mr. John Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Rating (Valuation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Rating (Valuation) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

RATEABLE VALUE

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, leave out from `substituted' to end of line 20 and insert
'"if the landlord undertook to execute prior to the start of the tenancy such repairs, if any, as the tenant might reasonably expect to be carried out to put the hereditament in a state to command that rent and the tenant undertook thereafter to bear the costs of repairs and insurance and to pay all usual rates and taxes".'.
Throughout the Bill's passage, both on Second Reading and in Committee, there has been serious concern that it does not do what the Government seek to do. There is a widespread fear that the legislation is too complex and convoluted. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must call the House to order. The hon. Gentleman is moving an amendment.

Mr. Burns: By making the Bill too complex and convoluted, the Government may achieve the exact opposite of their aim. Far from stemming the threat of further litigation, the Bill may open the floodgates to more.
To be fair to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, I should note that she genuinely sought to allay those fears in Committee, saying that she thought that our fears would not come to pass. However, one problem with the Bill is that it is so technical that no one on either side of the House knows exactly what might happen. It is the clear duty of both the Government and the Opposition parties to try to minimise the problems that might, or might not, emerge from the Bill.
The amendment's purpose is to try to clarify the situation and to prevent litigation and confusion. I shall try to explain this highly complex subject briefly. Before the 1990 revaluation, everyone tended to agree that there was an obligation on a hypothetical landlord to take some responsibility for putting a property into repair. The relevant definition was contained in section 19(6)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber, and that is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is trying to speak to his amendment.

Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Burns: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The relevant definition is contained in section 19(6) of the General Rate Act 1967. Everybody understood that: there was an obligation upon landlords to put property into repair if it was not in repair. Whether or not it was reasonable for the hypothetical tenant to expect the repair

work to be done was a matter of fact and degree. In other words, the obligation to put property into repair was in statute. Whether or not it was reasonable for works to be deemed to have been done in any particular case was a matter of fact and degree to be determined by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the appropriate tribunal.
The Inland Revenue developed what is now known as the "economic test", which it adopted as a golden rule. It took the line that, if the cost of doing the work required to put the property into a full state of repair did not exceed the annual rent of the property in a full state of repair, the hypothetical landlord was to be deemed to have carried out the work concerned. The proposals in this legislation seem incredibly complicated and they go a great deal further than any intention declared by the Government hitherto.
The Local Government Finance Act 1988 shifted the assumed burden of repair in order to make the hypothetical tenancy closer to the standard full repairing and insuring lease found in the market. The burden of repair was shifted to the tenant, and it would seem that nobody thought to include in the provisions any obligation upon anyone to put the property into any particular state of repair. Hence the difficulties that have led to this Bill.
If the agenda is simply to try to end the problems caused by the Anston case and impose an obligation to put into repair upon a hypothetical landlord, I believe the formula in this amendment is the best one. Such an approach would have the effect that the Government have declared they are seeking in this legislation. Most importantly, it would go no further.
For those reasons, I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically if not the amendment—because it is wrongly or badly drafted or whatever—then at least the aims of our amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): The Bill, as drafted, requires an assumption to be made for valuation purposes. The assumption is that, on the relevant date, the property is in a state of reasonable repair, subject to the test that repairs are assumed to have been carried out only when a reasonable landlord would consider it economic to do so.
The amendment would substitute for this assumption a slightly different one: that, before the tenancy begins, the landlord would have carried out any repairs that a tenant might reasonably expect in order to put the property in a state to command an annual rent. The tenant would then—as the Bill already stipulates—be assumed to maintain the property during the tenancy.
As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out correctly, this is a very technical Bill and my Department has examined it carefully. This amendment appears to be an attempt to achieve the main purpose of the Bill by using slightly different words. Even if that is the case, it may not do so exactly. The amendment puts the emphasis on the repairs that a tenant might reasonably expect to be carried out. That is not the same as the test applied before 1990 under the gross value basis of valuation, which was directed at what repairs a reasonable landlord would consider it economic to carry out himself.
In response to the queries of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, it is our intention, as he rightly noted, to return the law to what it was understood to be before 1990. The Bill therefore adopts the test that existed before 1990 and not that set out in his amendment.
Perhaps more importantly, the amendment does not expressly address uneconomic repairs, which, under the Bill would be reflected in valuations in their actual state. It could be argued that it must be assumed as inherent in the concept of reasonableness that no one could reasonably expect repairs to be carried out at all if it is not economic to do so. However, that point has been argued as far as the Court of Appeal. In that light, we should not return to the matter being left open to argument. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out that that is one of the reasons why we have had to come here tonight. To leave it open could create cases under which uneconomic repairs are assumed, for rating purposes, to be repaired. I cannot accept an amendment that runs a risk of getting us into a similar dilemma to that which caused the need for the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall be brief. Hon. Members who saw me shuffling papers will note that only three sheets remain from the seven or eight that I had a little while ago.
This debate is appropriate for this time of night because it will assist hon. Members in getting off to sleep quickly. It is a dry, technical subject, but, for, some people, it is of great concern. The Bill introduces some uncertainty, which is why I support the amendment of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
The problem that this provision attempts to address is not real, but perceived. It arises out of a misreading of the Anston case in the Lands Tribunal last year. For some reason, the Government are holding to advice that is unsound and that leads them to believe that the judgment is about disrepair in the most general of forms rather than exceptional disrepair, which is what full reading of the case shows it to be about. In Committee, I asked for evidence of the Government's concern that the judgment would unleash a flood of appeals. We found from written answers that there was none. The Minister told us:
the valuer cannot assume anything other than a reasonable state of repair. However, what is reasonable will depend on the real-world situation on the day by reference to which he makes his valuation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 January 1999; c. 25.]
Would that the Bill said that, but, unfortunately, it does not do what the Minister for Local Government and Housing said in Committee. I had hoped that by the time that we got to Report she would have tabled an amendment that put into law what she said in Committee. Sadly, that has not happened, and this amendment has been tabled to try to do what the Government should have done.
I urge the Minister to accept the concerns that are still being expressed by many outside this place who work in this profession and are concerned that the Bill removes an element of compromise and flexibility in the valuation system at the expense of businesses that could, as a result, be driven out of business by rates bill rises. I hope that he can give us further reassurance that the Bill will not have that effect, but from what we have heard and what the profession believes, the Bill is a mistake that the amendment would go some way to rectify.

Mr. Meale: Many of the fears and worries of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be

addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, when she addresses amendment No. 1, shortly. She has consulted a sufficient number of bodies outside this place to give a satisfactory answer.
As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford admitted, the amendment does not fundamentally change the effect of the Bill. It goes in a slightly different direction, changing the wording. I therefore hope that the assurances that I have given are sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to the Minister. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. Although there is still confusion and some concern, it would not be appropriate at this stage to force a Division on this amendment. When the Bill leaves the House and goes to another place, there will be another opportunity to get to grips with the outstanding issues that are causing concern. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
'provided that there shall be excepted from any deemed reinstatement occurring in the course of the exercise of this assumption any want of actual repair to a hereditament arising from any peril customarily insured against, Acts of God, civil commotion, war or terrorism, or arising from the rebuilding or substantial refurbishment thereof'.
I speak with trepidation bearing in mind recent comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what the Minister will say.
The amendment will be familiar to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, and to the Minister particularly. It addresses an issue that I raised on Second Reading. The Bill, as drafted, precludes valuation officers being able to reflect in their evaluations the effect of natural disasters that result in temporary disrepair. The amendment provides a mechanism by which the practice may continue in respect of damage caused by acts of God, civil commotion, war or terrorism.
In Committee, the Minister graciously said that she would look at the matter further, and that she recognised the anxiety expressed in Committee and outside this place. She said that, if she thought it necessary, she would seek to table amendments. I therefore draw one of two conclusions. Either the Government find my amendment acceptable, or they are able to reassure those, along with myself, who have raised concerns. I look forward to the Minister's response—one way or the other.

Mr. Burns: The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for very long.
We had a full debate on this amendment in Committee, during which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), my hon. Friends and I expressed concern. Indeed, we remain concerned—hence the tabling of the amendment—about the issues that are thrown up by the Bill. Clearly, we are not in a position at this stage to know exactly how the Government will react to the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that, on reflection, and having had an opportunity to study the debate in


Committee and think again, the Government will be minded to accept it. Obviously, we are in the dark until the Minister speaks. The hon. Gentleman and I will listen very carefully to the Minister's comments before reaching a decision on how to progress further.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): As we can see, the Bill has riveted the attention of the whole House and highlighted the serious consideration that Members have given to the important issue of how hereditaments are rated, the practices that are used and the assumptions that are made.
We have had full discussions and consultation with organisations that have expressed concern, as I promised in Committee. Officials met the representatives of the professional bodies on 2 February and the professions restated their concern that the Bill should define reasonable repair and accidental damage that should be excluded from rating assessments. They put forward a number of specific cases in which they feared the Bill might produce unfair consequences and treatment for ratepayers different from those under current legislation.
The professional bodies remain opposed to the Bill in principle because they do not think that it is necessary, but the Government are convinced that it is necessary, and the professions accept that our intention is not what they originally thought it was. They accept also that it would be counterproductive to try to include in the Bill all the different circumstances in which the assumption of a reasonable state of repair would or would not have effect. It would be almost impossible to produce a definitive list. We would have to regularly rewrite that list because it would not correspond with practical examples.
To help allay the concerns of the professions, the Valuation Office agency has drafted a practice note on its approach to valuation following enactment of the Bill. That will deal with the treatment of the marginal cases that the professions are most concerned about and draw on existing case law in support of the approaches that they propose should be taken in respect of each one. The Valuation Office is consulting the professional bodies on the drafting of that practice note. I thought that it might be helpful to explain to hon. Members the negotiations that we have been conducting about the professions' concerns.
Amendment No. 1 reflects hon. Members' concern that any lack of repair arising, for example, from accidental damage, should be reflected in the valuation until that damage is repaired. I understand those concerns. I have repeatedly said that the Government and the Valuation Office have only one intention: to ensure that the assumption as to repair is that which was made in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston, and nothing more and nothing less.
The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupation or, in other words, it is unusable, it will be removed from the rating list and no rates will be payable. That is clear. If only part of the property is rendered incapable of beneficial occupation, it has generally been the practice of valuation officers to reduce the rateable value of the premises with effect for the period during which that part of the property cannot be used, to reflect that loss of beneficial use. That applies as much to disrepair occasioned by accidental damage as it does to all other types of disrepair.
I recognise the concerns of the professions and hon. Members that the Bill may affect that position, but I do not believe that it does so. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we have carefully considered the matter, and in discussions the Valuation Office has made it clear to the professions that it will continue to value properties affected in that manner in precisely the same way as before.
I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. The Valuation Office has prepared a draft practice note which draws on existing case law and aims to set out how rateable values should be assessed in particular circumstances. I know that professional bodies are co-operating fully in the production of that practice note, to try to ensure that matters of concern are addressed. I believe that that offers a constructive way forward in an area of understandable concern.
That is the right way to proceed. The practice note will be clear to the Valuation Office and to the professions. Accordingly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. If not, I ask the House to join me in opposing it.

Mr. Burstow: I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, especially the extended references to the practice note that is being drafted in consultation with the various organisations that have an interest in the matter, such as the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Rating Surveyors Association. I know that other organisations have also been engaged in dialogue with representatives from the Department, to try to allay their concerns about the way in which the Bill, as drafted, will affect their activities and, more to the point, the way in which it will affect many businesses or hereditaments, as they are called for the purpose.
I am sure that those organisations welcome the Government's co-operative approach, but they question the need for the practice note and the Minister's comments. The need to elaborate in such detail begs the question whether the drafting of the Bill has caused the confusion that the practice note is intended to dispel. That is one of the reasons why I did not find the Minister's comments as persuasive as she might have hoped.
The statement by the Minister about acts of God, civil commotion and so on, which are dealt with in my amendment, relates to a serious concern which many of the professional bodies believe should be dealt with in the Bill. Only one professional body has withdrawn its objection and says that the practice note is sufficient. I have seen letters of representation from the other organisations, which hold to the view that the Bill as drafted does not give them confidence that they can give comfort to those who will lose out through the change in the system.
The Bill does not merely put the law back to where it was on the day that Judge Marder in his judgment at the Lands Tribunal allegedly changed it. The Bill moves the goalposts to disadvantage businesses seeking to secure a fair valuation of their property.
One of the points that has been made and that is germane to the amendment was that the Aniston case would unleash—

Ms Armstrong: Anston.

Mr. Burstow: I am corrected by the Minister from a sedentary position—the Aniston case—

Ms Armstrong: Anston.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister has tried again, and I missed it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Anston."] I am sure that Hansard will show that it is Anston. I may have misread it in the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, where such errors creep in a little too often. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction.
The judgment was alleged to have unleashed a process of perpetual revaluation. It was said that there would be a need continually to revalue properties to ascertain whether they were in a decent state of repair. If there was a chip in the paintwork or some other defect, a fresh valuation would be needed. That argument was nonsense from the outset. The profession had never believed that that would be the outcome and I doubt whether the Valuation Office genuinely believes that to be the product of the Anston case. The arguments for seeking to impose an unreasonable valuation on business premises made by the Valuation Office during that case boiled down more to administrative convenience and its own efficiency than to fairness.
This is about whether the Government should be allowed to stretch the term, "reasonable" to unreasonable lengths. That is effectively what they will do, to the disadvantage of many businesses. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of supporting my important amendment, because I intend to divide the House on it. It will ensure that the current practice, on which the Minister has sought to give us assurances, is in the Bill. Practice notes can be rewritten; this Bill should state specifically that those matters will continue to operate as they do now.
We shall not withdraw the amendment, and I urge hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to protect businesses from the unfair additional burden that the Bill will place on them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 206.

Division No. 76]
[10.41 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Keetch, Paul


Breed, Colin
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Burns, Simon
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gorrie, Donald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harris, Dr Evan
Mr. Richard Allan and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. David Heath.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh


Atkins, Charlotte
Beard, Nigel


Barnes, Harry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony





Bermingham, Gerald
Hoyle, Lindsay


Berry, Roger
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Best, Harold
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Betts, Clive
Hurst, Alan


Blizzard, Bob
Hutton, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Illsley, Eric


Browne, Desmond
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Buck, Ms Karen
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Burden, Richard
Jamieson, David


Burgon, Colin
Jenkins, Brian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Caborn, Richard



Cann, Jamie
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Casale, Roger
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Caton, Martin
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cawsey, Ian
Kemp, Fraser


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Clapham, Michael
Kidney, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Laxton, Bob


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Lepper, David


Clelland, David
Levitt, Tom


Coaker, Vernon
Linton, Martin


Cohen, Harry
Love, Andrew


Coleman, Iain
McAllion, John


Connarty, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCabe, Steve


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Cranston, Ross
McDonnell, John


Crausby, David
McFall, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McIsaac, Shona


Cummings, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNulty, Tony


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
MacShane, Denis


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Mallaber, Judy


Dalyell, Tam
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Davidson, Ian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Martlew, Eric


Dawson, Hilton
Maxton, John


Dean, Mrs Janet
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Dowd, Jim
Mitchell, Austin


Drew, David
Moffatt, Laura


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Edwards, Huw
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Etherington, Bill
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Flynn, Paul
Mountford, Kali


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mudie, George


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Gapes, Mike
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gerrard, Neil
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Olner, Bill


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Pearson, Ian


Goggins, Paul
Pickthall, Colin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Plaskitt, James


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pope, Greg


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pound, Stephen


Hanson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Healey, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Heppell, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Hesford, Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Hoey, Kate
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Rammell, Bill


Hopkins, Kelvin
Raynsford, Nick






Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wray, James


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It became clear in Committee that the professional bodies representing the valuation profession, and Opposition Members, feared that the Bill went rather further than the Government had suggested. We have said that our intention in introducing the Bill was to restore the position on rating valuations to the one which existed before the Lands Tribunal decision in Benjamin v. Anston Properties.
As I said earlier, since the Bill went into Committee on 19 January my officials, together with officers from the Valuation Office, have met representatives of the professional bodies. We have sought to reassure them that the Bill only returns the assumption regarding the state of repair for valuation purposes to that which applied before 1990—which assumption the agency has applied to valuations since then.
I hope that we have now at least convinced the profession of our intentions. I believe that we have, but, for the benefit of the House, let me say a little about the background to the Bill, and why the Government felt compelled to act.
Until the introduction of national non-domestic rates in 1990, the rating hypothesis allowed for two different bases of valuation, depending on the type of property to be valued. The first was a valuation to gross value. It was established by case law that, in valuing to gross value, an assumption was made that the property was in a state of reasonable repair unless the cost of repairs would be uneconomic. The majority of commercial properties were assessed on that basis. The second basis of valuation was valuation to net annual value, which is equivalent to rateable value. While the situation with regard to the repair assumption was less clear in relation to valuations made direct to rateable value, leading authorities suggested that the same assumption regarding repair had to be made.
The rating hypothesis was changed in 1990 as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which was introduced by the last Government. Schedule 6, paragraph 2 of that Act, which the Bill seeks to amend, placed the obligation to repair on the hypothetical tenant where, under gross value, it had previously rested with the hypothetical landlord.
That change in basis reflected the general movement in the non-domestic property market towards leases where the tenant had a repairing obligation. It reflected the real-world position. It allowed valuers to use direct rental evidence obtained from leases without having to adjust that evidence to accord with the hypothesis, as happened before 1990. However, it was not the then Government's intention that the approach to valuation should change in respect of the repair assumption. Indeed, the Valuation Office continued to apply the assumption that, in most cases, properties are in a state of reasonable repair.
Then we had the decision by the Lands Tribunal in the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties on 11 March 1998. That directly contradicted this view. The Lands Tribunal found instead that rating valuations should reflect the actual repair condition of the property on the valuation date. We therefore believe that the decision calls into question all valuations carried out by the Valuation Office for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. As hon. Members will appreciate, that would give serious problems to the prospect of rating. As we are entering a new valuation period, it is important that there should be clarity as to precisely what the law intends.
The Bill seeks to underpin the rating valuations that were made for both those lists by confirming the basis on which they were made. It also establishes firmly that property is in future to be valued on the assumption that it is in a state of reasonable repair.
So much for our intention. It was clear in Committee that hon. Members had concerns—raised by the professional bodies—that, in drafting the Bill, we had gone further than was intended. That is not our objective. Despite having listened, gone back and looked at the matter again and again following representations from the professions and hon. Members, I do not believe that that is what the Bill does.
As I said in Committee, I was entirely happy for consultation to take place with whoever wanted to have it, and that has happened. In essence, the professions were concerned that, in introducing the specific assumption of a state of reasonable repair to the rating hypothesis, we would affect some properties that currently benefit from a reduction in rateable value in particular circumstances.
I shall deal with the concept of reasonable repair itself. The Bill requires that assumption to be made subject to the economic test that previously applied. In doing so, it codifies the practical effects of previous cases, notwithstanding the fact that those were decided in the context of gross value.
Case law going back well before 1990, and the practice established as a result of that case law, means that what it is reasonable to expect in relation to the repair condition of any hereditament will depend on the age and type of the property, the locality in which it is situated and all the surrounding circumstances. That follows, necessarily, from the fundamental principle for valuation that such matters relating to the hereditament are to be taken as they stand.
In the light of that case law, I do not believe that it is necessary to import into the legislation a definition of reasonable repair. Indeed, I believe that, in seeking to do so, we would run the significant risk of introducing an unintended restriction and so lose the flexibility that valuers and the courts need in deciding what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case.
A further concern was how, following enactment of the Bill as drafted, the Valuation Office would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced, often for short periods only, to take account—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There are far too many private conversations going on. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister. If they do not, they must hold their conversations somewhere else.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I understand why hon. Members might like to have private conversations during this summary. However, it is my job, so I have to proceed with the Summary.
A further concern was how the Valuation Office would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced, often for short periods only, to take account of circumstances affecting the property; examples include a property that has been damaged by fire, or one that is undergoing substantial building work. I understand that concern, and have repeatedly said that the Government and the Valuation Office have only one intention—to ensure that the assumption on repair is that which was made in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston.
The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupations—if, in other words, it is unusable—it will be removed from the rating list and no rates will be payable. That is clear—certainly it is clear to the public, even if it is not yet clear to Opposition Members. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the professions and by Committee members that the Bill may affect the current position, but I do not believe that it will. As I said, I have examined the matter many times. In discussions, the Valuation Office has made it clear that it will continue to value properties affected in precisely the same way as before.
The Valuation Office shares the Government's concern that the Bill should take us back only to the position we believed we were in prior to the Anston decision. As I said, the agency is preparing a practice note on application of the Bill post-enactment, and it is sharing drafts of it with the professional bodies. I really do believe that that is an effective way to proceed. I have also given very clear reasons why it would be irresponsible to put in the Bill matters that should be in a practice note. Including them in the Bill would necessitate subsequent changes to primary legislation to deal with new or changed matters, which would not help in the evaluation process, in which evaluation officers operate by tight timetables.
I hope that my comments in this debate, and the Valuation Office's practice note, will serve to clarify our intentions in introducing the Bill. Although it is a small and technical Bill, we have the responsibility of

passing it—so that businesses that are currently facing revaluation will know that those revaluations are clearly in conformity with the expectations of the law, and so that they will know the basis on which their premises are valued.
Although we have a responsibility to ensure that there is such clarity, hon. Members have failed in this debate to convince me that such clarity exists. The longer the debate has continued, the more convinced I have become that the Bill is necessary. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Burstow: I appreciate that it is the time of night when hon. Members would rather be at home reading the Bill than listening to speeches about it. However, I shall be very brief.
I appreciate the lengths to which Ministers and their officials have gone, both before and after the Bill's Committee stage, in consulting and holding a dialogue with the professions. I should like to place on record the appreciation of those efforts that the professions have expressed to me. The dialogue has been important.
There is a genuine and honest difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the case, and of the Bill in future. I am grateful for the way the Minister has dealt with the matter, both tonight and earlier. There is however a need for clarity, and I do not believe that the Bill provides it.
I was concerned that the explanatory notes were longer than the Bill, and we must be cautious when that happens. It was for that reason that we hoped that some of the points in the explanatory notes would be in the Bill.
Shortly after the Committee, I received a letter from the Rating Surveyors Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I knew that hon. Members would perk up at the reference to that body. It drew to my attention the words of Justice of Appeal Godfrey, which I thought I would share with the House:
The world of rating appears to one unfamiliar with the arcana to be cloud-cuckoo land, a world of virtual unreality from which real cuckoos are excluded altogether, although it seems that permission to land will be granted to a cuckoo flying in the form of the real world if it can be demonstrated that, in the presence of cloud-cuckoo land, it is essential and not merely an accident.
You will wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I read that out. Even I am wondering why. However, the Bill feels like cloud cuckoo land, with its hypothetical tenants and landlords. I have had to explore those issues for the first time, as Ministers have had to. However, the fact that the Minister has had to read into the record such a detailed statement about the Bill—and has had to give an undertaking about producing detailed practice notes—indicates that it is not straightforward.
The Bill would have benefited from amendments, but it has not been amended. However, the Government have done what they believe to be right and tried to correct the law. There is an honest disagreement about that, but the Government are proposing mechanisms that have given some comfort to the profession. For that reason, we do not intend to divide on Third Reading.

Mr. Burns: Although this clearly is not a party political matter, there is concern that although the Government are seeking to block a loophole that emerged


from a court case, they will not achieve that with the Bill. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that the Government have not accepted any amendments. I am concerned that the ministerial statement and the draft practice notes will not be in the legislation, which could cause problems in future. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that he would not divide the House, but I am not convinced that the Bill will succeed. I am not prepared to support it on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 140.

Division No. 77]
[11.9 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Allen, Graham
Goggins, Paul


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Golding, Mrs Llin


Atkins, Charlotte
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Barron, Kevin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Battle, John
Hanson, David


Bayley, Hugh
Healey, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heppell, John


Berry, Roger
Hesford, Stephen


Best, Harold
Hinchliffe, David


Betts, Clive
Home Robertson, John


Blizzard, Bob
Hoyle, Lindsay


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Browne, Desmond
Hurst, Alan


Burden, Richard
Iddon, Dr Brian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Illsley, Eric


Caplin, Ivor
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Casale, Roger
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Caton, Martin
Jamieson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jenkins, Brian


Clapham, Michael
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)



Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Clelland, David
Kemp, Fraser


Coaker, Vernon
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cohen, Harry
Kidney, David


Connarty, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Laxton, Bob


Cranston, Ross
Lepper, David


Crausby, David
Levitt, Tom


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Love, Andrew


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McCabe, Steve


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
McDonnell, John


Dalyell, Tam
McFall, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davidson, Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
MacShane, Denis


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Mallaber, Judy


Dawson, Hilton
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Drew, David
Maxton, John


Etherington, Bill
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moffatt, Laura


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Moran, Ms Margaret





Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mountford, Kali
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Olner, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Woolas, Phil


Rogers, Allan
Wray, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Keith Hill.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Garnier, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Gibb, Nick


Beggs, Roy
Gill, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Blunt, Crispin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gray, James


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Grieve, Dominic


Brady, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hammond, Philip


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hayes, John


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith,


Cran, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Curry, Rt Hon David
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Duncan, Alan
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Evans, Nigel
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Flight, Howard
Loughton, Tim






Luff, Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Major, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Malins, Humfrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Townend, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Walter, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Paterson, Owen
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Wilshire, David


Prior, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Randall, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Woodward, Shaun


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Ruffley, David
Tellers for the Noes:


St Aubyn, Nick
Sir David Madel and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 40) (HC 205), which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

War Pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise in the House the issue of the backdating of war pensions. In the debate, I shall refer to two of my constituents: to preserve their anonymity, I shall call them service man 1 and service man 2, although the Minister has, of course, been given details of their identity and their history. At the outset, I declare an interest in respect of the first of those two constituents: he hand-crafted a dolls' house for my seven-year-old daughter—a beautiful and touching gift, for which I am proud to express my thanks on her behalf.
Service man 1 will be 80 years old in July, but the past 58 of those years have been years of great suffering. Following the evacuation at Dunkirk, mines were laid by our own troops around the south coast as a defence against possible invasion. They were anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines; they were designed to destroy enemy landing craft and, when they exploded, they made craters 8 ft deep. During storms, in heavy seas, those mines shifted and service man 1's unit was sent to recover and replace them. They had no mine detectors, only bayonets, as they went into the storm, on to the shifting shingle.
Service man 1 was squatting on his heels, replacing the arming lever in one such mine, with two of his comrades beside him, when the mine exploded. The two men with him were killed. He survived, but was blown 40 yd into the sea. He suffered lacerations to his hands and face and within his mouth; his teeth were blown out at gum level; an injury to his right elbow prevented it from being fully extended; and flash blindness meant that he was without sight for five weeks. His nerves were shattered and he suffered deep concussion, memory loss, frequent nightmares and flashbacks. He was treated for seven months by the leading expert of the age, William Sargant, about whom I shall say more shortly.
On 19 August 1941, service man 1 was discharged from hospital suffering from, among other things, war neurosis—post-concussion, which is better known today as post-traumatic stress disorder. It is a chronic condition, whose symptoms include severe depression, awful dreams, flashbacks, aggressiveness, massive mood changes, gross irritability, anxiety, nervousness, insomnia, excessive fatigue, headaches and stress-related heart disease. On 15 September 1941, he was discharged from the Army and he applied, of course, for a war disablement pension.
On 18 September, service man 1 was sent Ministry form MPB 240, which stated that, despite the range of injuries suffered, only post-concussion syndrome and the injury to his elbow were to be recognised for war pension purposes. Worse still—bizarrely, even hideously, one might think—the Ministry denied that the conditions were directly attributable to war service and that exploding mine. It said that the war may have exacerbated prior conditions.
In consequence, service man 1 was awarded a partial war pension only, even in respect of the limited conditions that the Ministry recognised. However, worse was to follow. The partial award, made in 1941, was reduced steadily until it was removed altogether in 1953.
Some people may think that service man 1 must have been making a remarkable recovery, but post-traumatic stress disorder is a chronic condition. The available medical records—which I have seen and forwarded to the Secretary of State—show conclusively that service man 1 received medical treatment for the various indicia of the condition in every decade from the date of injury to the present.
After discharge, he was unable, because of illness, to recommence his pre-war trade. He was forced to take a menial job. In 1981, just weeks after seeing his doctor for depression yet again, he was forced to take early retirement on medical grounds from that menial job.
Service man 1 tells me, and I believe him, that he made no miraculous recovery, that he suffered throughout and that he suffers now. He cannot even be treated for cataracts because of feared internal head injuries. Yet from 1941, this brave man received a reduced war pension and, from 1953, no war pension at all.
Some people may say that he should have continued to appeal, year after year. He did appeal, from 1941 to 1955, and was rebuffed. Why? William Sargant, the doctor to whose care service man 1 was entrusted gives us the answer in his seminal work on traumatised world war two veterans entitled "The Unquiet Mind". The book demands greater scrutiny than I can give it today, but in it he states:
Just before the declaration of World War II, a group of official advisory experts … decided that war neuroses could best be abolished by simply pretending that they did not exist; or at least that they were not caused by a man's war experiences but by an inherited predisposition or early childhood trauma. So, although we could discharge mentally ill patients from the Army, if they were clearly of no further military use and might relapse when returned to duty, any applications for war pensions on their returning still partially disabled to civilian life were brusquely rejected.
Service man 1 was not just a victim of war, of an exploding mine or of post-traumatic stress disorder: he was a victim of official blindness to his suffering.
In world war two, we may not have executed personnel traumatised by the conflict, as happened a quarter of a century earlier, but neither did we give them war pensions. We cannot have expected such men, who were already damaged, to continue to apply for war pensions, year after year, in the face of official denial. Even the loving wife of service man 1, who has stood by him and suffered with him all these years, could not bring herself to apply on his behalf, at further risk to his fragile peace of mind.
In 1996, with the encouragement and support of the Royal British Legion and the organisation Combat Stress, service man 1 reapplied for a war pension. It was then conceded that mistakes had been made, that he had suffered a wider range of injuries than had been recognised all those years before, that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and that that was caused by the exploding mine in 1941. That had been denied when he first applied.
A war pension was at last awarded to him again, and even upgraded after the War Pensions Agency found papers that had previously been lost. However, even though it related to suffering that dated from 1941, that war pension was backdated only to 1996, the date of the latest application.
Service man 2 also lives in my constituency. He joined the Royal Army Medical Corps as a regular before the second world war. He was 17. He had excellent eyesight, he was an athlete and he weighed 12 st 7 1b. He boxed at the upper limit of the light heavyweight division for the RAMC team. He was stationed in north China between 1937 and 1939, and he contracted typhoid, amoebic dysentery and other diseases. During the battle of Singapore, his first aid post was bombed and shelled from air and sea. He was shot in the leg, and he suffered a fracture and shrapnel wounds. He was taken prisoner by the imperial Japanese forces. He spent three and a half years in captivity, and he worked on the Burma-Siam railway.
Service man 2 contracted terrible tropical diseases. He was beaten, and he suffered loss of teeth, ruptured ear drums and a broken nose. He was starved; the former light heavyweight boxer's weight fell to under 7 st. He became so emaciated that he was blinded for three months by malnutrition. When he could see, he witnessed depravity—man's inhumanity to man, and sights no man should have to endure. They cannot bear repeating in the House.
On his release, like service man 1, service man 2 suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He returned to this country after the war, after 11 years of unbroken military service. That regular soldier, who had expected to serve for 18 years, was found unfit for further service. He was part of the human debris of war.
Service man 2—a brave man—was subjected to ridicule. Broken, physically and mentally, he was abused and humiliated. In 1946, he changed his name by deed poll to try to bury the traumas of his past.
The very least that service man 2 might have expected was proper treatment by those responsible for war disablement pensions. Yet, in 1946, he was awarded disablement pension in respect only of myopia with astigmatism, malaria and dysentery—just three of the conditions on the list of injuries and conditions from which he was suffering. In 1950, his war pension in respect of the three recognised conditions was reduced to 20 per cent. In 1955, it was reduced to the range of 6 to 14 per cent. In those days, assessments of under 20 per cent. took the form of a small weekly pension followed by a lump sum payment, and that was made in February 1957. For 30 years and more, that was his lot.
Service man 2 had to wait until access to medical records legislation came into force in 1989 before he could scrutinise medical documents he had not previously seen. Afterwards, he presented himself for medical re-examination, and it was confirmed several months later that, in addition to the three conditions previously recognised, he had been suffering from seven further long-standing—I stress long-standing—conditions induced by war. They were bilateral hearing loss; Meniere's disease; shrapnel wounds to his legs; a fractured left ankle; an injury to his pelvis; malnutrition; and, again, post-traumatic stress disorder.
In 1990, the seven additional disabilities were acknowledged, and service man 2 was awarded a war pension accordingly. As with service man 1, it was backdated only to the date of latest application—1990.
My two brave constituents were wrongly denied war pensions for many years. Some disabilities were missed, others wrongly stated not to have been caused by war.


Post-traumatic stress disorder was ignored, airbrushed out of medical history as if it simply did not exist. We do not need to condemn out of hand those responsible for the errors; they were made in times very different from today. However, in a humane society, we must condemn any system that prevents those mistakes from being rectified now.
My hon. Friend the Minister will known that, until 7 April 1997, the Secretary of State was vested with a broad discretion to issue backdated war pensions in appropriate and exceptional cases. That discretion afforded the Secretary of State the capacity to act and to do justice in appropriate and compelling cases. From that date on, however, the Conservative Government all but removed the discretion.
On 3 February 1999, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he thought it sensible to restore to his Secretary of State the discretion that the Conservatives had removed. He said that the Government would
always consider ways of improving the situation … within the Government's overall cost budget."—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 931.]
On the issue of cost, I remind my hon. Friend of two things. First, on this point, all I am asking for is restoration of a discretion to backdate in appropriate and compelling cases. That is not a huge spending commitment. Secondly, as I understand it, the first year of the Labour Government yielded a saving of £53 million on war pensions alone. Even after conceding to the Royal British Legion's demand—which I support—that we reverse restrictions on deafness pensions for ex-service men and women, there must still be money available from that pot to make restoration of the discretion a real and a worthy measure.
I ask my hon. Friend tonight—just as I asked our mutual right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago—whether he thinks it is sensible to restore to the Secretary of State the discretion to issue backdated war pensions in cases that truly merit it. If not, why not? What conceivable reason could any Secretary of State have for wishing to deprive himself of at least the capacity to exercise mercy, compassion and discretion when fairness compels it? I await my hon. Friend's answer with great interest. I have thought hard about that question, and I can think of no reason whatsoever.
My hon. Friend does not have to go that far—although I implore him to do so—to help service men 1 and 2. After all, they applied for backdating before 7 April 1997. The Secretary of State retains his discretion to remedy the unfairness that they have suffered. It is about discretion—it is not about rigid rules to which there must be slavish adherence. As of 1 April 1998, the then Secretary of State did not even know when the discretion was last exercised or how many times it had been exercised since the general election. I consider that to be a lamentable state of affairs. I also think it begs the question whether past Secretaries of State have acted lawfully.
How can discretion have been exercised fairly and consistently in the past if we do not even know how and when it was exercised? How can we be sure that we have been treating like cases in a like manner? Can my hon. Friend tell me tonight whether the discretion has ever been exercised by this Government? It certainly has not been exercised thus far in favour of either of my constituents.
There has been nothing by way of backdating for service man 1, who was blown up by our own land mine. He was forced to abandon his trade through shattered nerves and to take early retirement by reason of depression. He has received nothing, despite known errors in the way in which his case was handled and despite medical evidence of on-going suffering for nearly 60 years.
There has been nothing for service man 2, who was starved on the Burma-Siam railway and whose post-traumatic stress disorder was ignored. He has received nothing, despite the six other missed long-standing medical conditions from which he has been suffering since the war.
There has been nothing for either of them.
Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State, in whom the discretion is vested, to examine both cases again? Will he ask him to exercise that discretion—a discretion which is still available to him—so as to right the wrongs inflicted on my two constituents? They do not want huge sums of money, but they want the mistakes of the past acknowledged and corrected. They want fairness—a fairness that they have been denied by successive Governments for far too long. I want fairness too: I want it for my constituents. Until we have it, there will be a scar on the soul of this country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on securing this debate on such an important subject. The way in which he has made his case tonight will go further to enhance the reputation that he already enjoys as an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.
I begin by paying tribute to those members of our armed forces who have been killed or injured in the service of their country.
Members of Parliament of my generation must remember that the democratic liberties that we enjoy to seek election to Parliament and to speak freely when we get here were kept alive by the sacrifice of British service men and women during two world wars. All hon. Members owe a deep debt of gratitude to soldiers such as my hon. Friend's constituents. I share his belief that those who have served their country and suffered injury should be properly compensated. I do not want there to be any doubt of that in his mind.
My Department is committed to ensuring that decisions about war pensions are made fairly and consistently on the basis of the facts in individual cases and the law pertaining to those facts. The war pensions scheme provides a basic pension or gratuity for disablement due to, or aggravated by, military service, whether in time of peace or war, and a range of allowances that may be paid in addition to the basic pension. The basic pension is currently £111.10 a week, and allowances for severely disabled ex-service men or women can increase that to slightly more than £400 a week. Entitlement to basic pensions and allowances is decided only after advice from doctors appointed by the Secretary of State.
For many years, the law has provided that the date of commencement for a war pension is normally the date of the claim or review that led to an increase in the pension.
However, my hon. Friend raised a question about the discretion for backdating that was vested in the Secretary of State before 1997. The War Pensions Agency observes guidelines that are in the public domain in dealing with such cases. This is a discretionary provision, so each case must be considered on its merits and not according to precedent. Both cases raised by my hon. Friend have been considered in that manner.
My hon. Friend asked whether I believe that the Government should restore a facility to backdate. That facility is there—in 1997, just before the general election, the facility to backdate was changed from one of discretion by the Secretary of State to one prescribed by regulations. However, it is the previous discretionary provision that concerns the two cases that my hon. Friend raised. I am of course aware of his long-standing interest in the cases, which is reflected in the parliamentary questions that he has asked and his detailed correspondence with my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, the Minister responsible for war pensions.
Service man 1 enlisted in the 204th (Wessex) Field Company, Royal Engineers, Territorial Army in 1939. He transferred to full-time service on the outbreak of war in September that year and performed all his Army service in the United Kingdom until sustaining his injuries on 7 January 1941. He received immediate medical treatment and, later, hospital treatment in Deal, Chatham and Sutton. He was discharged from the Army on 15 September 1941 as permanently unfit for any form of military service because of his injuries. He was awarded a war disablement pension from the following day for post-concussive syndrome and a loose body in the right elbow joint, which were the only conditions for which he claimed.
Service man 1 was readmitted to hospital in Sutton in February 1942 for further treatment due to the post-concussive syndrome and blast effects. His file then records several medical examinations over the period from August 1942 to May 1954. The examinations indicated that although still suffering from the effects of his injuries sustained in January 1941, his disablements, when compared with a fit person of similar age, were improving. A final gratuity was awarded in December 1950 for the period to November 1953.
Those decisions about service man 1's war pension entitlement were not taken arbitrarily or in isolation, but based on the facts that were established at the time. Service man 1 sought help from at least two ex-service organisations and had his case considered by the local war pensions committee. There matters rested until 1996, when a further claim was made and a war disablement pension was awarded from the date of that claim. My hon. Friend says that the War Pensions Agency was blind to the needs of his constituent. I regret that I cannot accept that, because it considered properly and fully the claims each time that one was made.

Mr. Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend will know that I referred to an extract of "The Unquiet Mind" by the expert of the age, William Sargant, which I have sent to his Department. He will therefore know not only that we air-brushed out post-traumatic stress disorder from second world war medical history books, but that after the second world war although those with bunions but fit and able enough to fight for their war pensions got one, those who

suffered brain damage did not, because they were unable to fight and their families were too ashamed to fight for them.

Mr. Bayley: I have not read the whole of William Sargant's book, but I have read the extract which my hon. Friend has drawn to my attention. The books suggests—my hon. Friend seems to be suggesting, too—that, at the time of the second world war, the Government had a general policy of rejecting war pensions claims made in respect of psychological injuries. I have made inquiries as a result of my hon. Friend's representations and found that, in 1939, £22 million was paid in respect of war pensions for psychiatric illness, largely in respect of non-psychotic conditions, which these days might be described as post-traumatic stress disorder, and that psychiatric illness accounted for 15 per cent. of all conditions compensated by the scheme. So it is not true to say that the Government in the war period sought to air-brush psychiatric conditions out of the war pensions scheme.
Service man 2 was awarded a war disablement pension from May 1946 until February 1957 in respect of disablements from which he was suffering at that time. The level of war pension, as in the case of service man 1, was decided not arbitrarily, but following medical examination. Service man 2 was examined on seven occasions between March 1946 and April 1954. He also exercised his appeal rights. The pensions appeal tribunal—a body totally independent from the then Ministry of Pensions—upheld the decision on the level of disablement, and found that two disablements for which he had claimed were not attributable to military service. By 1955, service man 2's level of disablement was such that he was not entitled to a weekly pension payment, and a final gratuity was paid.
Service man 2 did not make a further claim for a war disablement pension until March 1990. That claim resulted in an award, and the assessment of service man 2's disablements has subsequently increased to 100 per cent. In both cases, the war pension has been awarded from the date of a new claim, which is what the law prescribes, since there was nothing that prevented either ex-service man from approaching the Department at any time during the intervening years and reopening their case.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of war pensions for hearing loss. That concerns two distinct issues. First, the war pensions scheme was amended in 1993 to introduce a 20 per cent. Cut-off, which aligned the war pension rules for noise-induced hearing loss with those for industrial deafness under the industrial injuries scheme. Secondly, in 1996 the Department changed the rules to ensure that only hearing loss due to service attracts an award under the war pensions scheme. War disablement pensions can be paid only for disablement due to service. They cannot be paid for hearing loss that is due to aging or any other non-service cause. To pay a war pension for conditions unrelated to service would run counter to the basic principles of the scheme.
My hon. Friend claimed that the War Pensions Agency has not fully recognised the psychological trauma of the two ex-service men whose cases he has raised. I do not believe that that is so.
In the case of service man 1, his war pension assessment included disablement through service-related psychological injury from the outset, and in the case of


service man 2, from 1991 when he claimed for malnutrition and privation with associated nervous features.
In deciding whether there are grounds for backdating a war pension, the medical question that has to be considered is whether there is any mental or physical disablement that would prevent the war pensioner from lodging a claim at an earlier date than he did.
In conclusion, I have studied the files about the cases of service men 1 and 2 and listened carefully to all that my hon. Friend has said about those two brave ex-service

men. I congratulate him on the forceful way in which he has argued their cases. He will understand that I have to respond to his constituents on the same basis as for any other claim for backdating a war pension and that I am therefore unable to give any undertakings in either case. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend submits new evidence that he believes would have permitted the Secretary of State to exercise favourably his discretionary powers before 1997 in respect of either case, I will arrange for that evidence to be considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.